i 


^./d.o-^ 

Srom  f  ^c  Eifirari?  of 

(profefifior  ^atnuef  (gtifPer 

in  pernor)?  of 

3w^5e  ^amuef  (giifPer  QBrecftinrtbge 

1 

1 

1 

to  t^e  fei6mrg  of                             \ 

^rinceton  J^eofo^icaf  ^eminarj 

>• 

1 

770'^ 


y ' 


9 


'jl^    Oii^^t^  ^^  ^.  2>c^-^^'u^jZ<. 


r 


c4Uj/  ^:^^'-<>^J. — 


t~  (fiyli''-^ 


O^^^i^C-C^'T^'i^t^ 


c^  c<'*-iiA^ 


/•/ 


/-/t-c^ 


/^ 


/^ 


t^c-^  (yif^ 


C<rh..^tA^^    ^Cu^    (^o<-^^^  "^  /hey  /^y.^£^Z^f-^ 


^<>t^J?t. 


"^^^  Ctfu 


^u^^^^t^ffv^  {,/' a^t^i^*^^) 


/f 


r^  CA'''^^^ 


r 


y^ 


u 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Semhary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/threelettersondiOOosgo 


THREE  LETTERS, 


DIFFERENT  SUBJECTS: 


TO  JOHN  B.  ROMEYN,  D.  D. 

»0IKT1N<;    OUT    WHEREIN    THE    AUTHOr's    VIEWS   OF   PROPHECIES 

ARE    DIFFERENT    FROM    THOSE    OF     THE    DOCTOr's,    AS    THEY 

ARE    CONTAINED    IN    TWO    SERMONS    OF     HIS,    PREACHED 

ON    A    FAST    DAY,    AT    ALBANY,    SEPT»8,    18.08. 


TO  ISAAC  OSGOOD,  Esq. 

A  REVIEW  OF  Locke's  chapter  on  power,  and  edwards  on 

THE    FREEDOM    OF     THE    WILL. 


m. 
TO  THE  REV.  AMZI  ARMSTRONG. 

ALVINISTS  ARE    NOT  IN  EVERY  THING  CORRECT,  BECAUSE   THEY 
DISAGREE    AMONG    THEMSELVES    IN    SOME    THINGS 
THAT    ARE    VERY    IMPORTANT. 


BY  SAMUEL  OSGOOD,  A.  M.  A.  A.  S. 


PUBUSIIED  BY  SAMUEL  WHITING  &  CO 

J.  Seymour,  print. 


1811. 


B. 


DisirirJ  of  K^iV'7'ark,  ^s. 


>E  IT  RCMEMBEUED.  That  on  the  ei^hteoith  day  oi  M^rciu  iti  the  tlnity-fiMi  yur  of  the  Ud^pntknc;  of  tl^e 
Unitctl  Statei  of  Am-irica,  SAMUF.I.  OSGOOD,  of  the  snid  district,  h.ith  de|)osited  in  thi«  oflBce,  the  title  of  a  book, 
tlic  right  whereor  he  cl.-iims  ^s  author,  iii  the  words  and  figures  follouffng,  to  wit : 

'*  Three  Letter*  on  differmt  subject!  I  I.  To  John  B.  Rome>Ti,D.D.  Pointing  out  wherein  tho  Author'i  view.* 
'*  of  Proiihecies  are  different  fiomtimacol  the  Doctor'^,  a«  they  are  contained  hi  two  sermons  of  his,  i^re-idwd  una  fa>t- 
*'  day,  at  Albany,  Sept.  «.  I'JOB.  U.  To  Isaac  Osfcood,  Eiquitc  A  R*vie*  of  Locke's  Chapter  on  Pow*r,  and  Ed- 
*"  wardson  the  F'reedom  of  the  Will.  lit.  To  the  Rev.  Ainzi  Armstrong.  Cilvinisti  are  not  in  every  thing  correct, 
^'  because  they  disigice  Among  themselves  in  some  thingi  tKH  are  very  imi>ort3nt.  By  SAMUEL  OSGOOD,  AM.  A.  AS." 
In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  titites,  ntitled  "  An  Act  for  tS*  (yic.jur,iK«mnit  of 
learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  mapi,  chirtf,  an-l  boom,  to  the  aiiihora  wid  i>roprietort  "(  such  copiea,  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned."  And  ^tlso,  to  An  Act.  entitled  "  An  Act,  .<iui»plemiiit iry  to  an  Act  entitled  »n  Act  fnr  the 
encoungeinent  of  leaiTiing.  hy  tccuring  the  copi«  of  maps,  ch.-rts,  and  bo»k5.  t.>  t!.e  authoi>  and  jiroprietora  of  such 
fopiea,  dunnjs  the  Hmea  therein  mentiftj-d,  and  itxtending  the  b«efiu  iheiouf  to  the  arts  uf  dcjigning.  engraving,  and 
cvhiog,  historical  i»i  CKiiej-  priota." 

CHARLES  CI.TNTON,  Clerf:  of  f/.?  Distrit-t  of  Kfrv-l'o^k^ 


PREFACE. 

HE  author  of  the  following  expositions  of  prq- 
pheoy,  does  not  expect  to  gain  any  credit  by  making 
thcra  public.  Scenes  of  such  magnitude  have  passed 
so  rapidly  before  our  eyes  within  the  last  twenty  years, 
that  we  may  well  be  astonished,  when  wc  take  a  retro- 
spective view  of  them.  The  author  is  of  opinion,  that 
in  the  succeeding  twenty  or  thirty  years,  events  of  still 
greater  magnitude  will  take  place.  He  may  be  incor- 
rect ;  and  if  so,  time  will  make  it  manifest.  The  ex- 
positions are  intended  more  especially  for  those  that 
may  follow  after  us. 

After  the  following  sheets  on  prophecy  were  struck 
off,  a  friend  asked  the  author  what  meaning  ought  to 
be  affixed  to  the  following  words : — «<  The  temple  of 
the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony  in  heaven  was  open- 
ed." Rev.  XV.  5.  He  said,  that  from  these  words,  in 
connexion  with  what  followed  them,  he  inferred,  that 
none  of  the  vials  had  yet  been  poured  out.  This  infer- 
ence, to  a  plain  English  reader,  may  be  very  natural. 
The  whole  passage  is  as  follows  : — 

«  And  after  that  I  looked,  and  behold,  the  temple  of 
the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony  in  heaven  was  opened. 
And  the  seven  angels  came  out  of  the  temple,  having 
the  seven  plagues,  clothed  in  pure  and  white  linen,  and 
having  their  breasts  girded  with  golden  gh'dles.  And 
one  of  the  four  living  creatures  gave  unto  tlie  se- 
ven angels  seven  golden  vials  full   of  the  wrath  of 


IV 

Cod,  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever.  And  the  temple 
was  filled  with  smoke  from  the  glory  of  God,  and  from 
his  power;  and  no  man  was  ahle  to  enter  into  the  tem- 
ple, till  the  seven  plagues  of  the  seven  angels  were 
fulfilled." 

This  temple,  we  apprehend,  is  the  archetype  of  that 
which  we  find  described  in  Exodus,  c.  40.  into  which 
Moses  was  not  able  to-  enter,  because  the  cloud  abode 
thereon  ;  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  taberna- 
cle. We  find,  in  2  Sam.  with  what  solemnity  David 
brought  the  ark  into  the  city  of  David.  It  is  called 
**  the  ark  of  God,  whose  name  is  called  by  the  name  of 
the  Lord  of  hosts." 

By  the  seven  angels  I  understand  celestial  beings. 
The  temple  of  the  tabernacle,  therefore,  may  have 
been  opened  in  heaven,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
pouring  out  of  the  vials  ;  and  it  is  plainly  implied,  that 
men  will  enter  into  the  temple,  after  the  seven  plagues 
of  the  seven  angels  are  fulfilled.  Of  course,  it  may  be 
inferred,  that  it  is  the  millennial  temple.  We  have  not- 
seen  the  temple  of  the  tahernacle  opened ;  tlterefore  the 
vials  have  none  of  them  as  yet  been  poured  out,  is,  in  my 
humble  opinion,  extremely  incorrect  reasoning. 

**  The  temple  of  the  tabernacle  was  opened."  When 
was  it  opened  ?  How,  and  where  was  it  opened  ?  It  is 
said,  that  the  seven  angels  came  out  of  it,  and  re- 
eeived  the  vials  of  wrath  from  one  of  the  four  living 
creatures  ;  therefore  it  must  have  been  opened,  before 
they  began  to  be  poured  out.  We  grant  all  this  :  but 
this  concession  will  not  warrant  the  inference,  that  it 
must  be  opened  visibly  to  us,  before  any  of  the  vials 
are  poured  out. 

I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  in  the  expositions,  that 
the   four  living  ereaiures  intend  pious  Christians  on 


earth,  distinguished  by  the  term /our,  because  they 
lived  in  four  distinctly  different  tyrannical  monarchies. 

It  will  naturally  be  asked,  How  could  these  pious 
Christians,  or  one  set  of  them,  give  to  the  angels  the 
vials  of  wrath  ?  We  answer  in  the  words  of  St.  James, 
V.  16.  "  The  effectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous 
man  availeth  much.  Elias  was  a  man  subject  to  like 
passions  as  we  arc ;  and  he  prayed  earnestly  that  it 
might  not  rain,  and  it  rained  not  on  the  earth  by  the 
space  of  three  years  and  six  mouths.  And  he  prayed 
again,  and  the  heaven  gave  rain,  and  the  earth  brought 
forth  her  fruit.  Brethren,  if  any  of  you  do  err  from 
the  truth,  and  one  convert  him,  let  him  know,  that  he 
who  converteth  the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way, 
shall  save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  bide  a  multi- 
tude of  sins." 

Heb.  1.  13.  *<  But  to  which  of  the  angels  said  he  at 
any  time,  sit  on  my  right  hand,  until  I  make  thine  ene- 
mies thy  footstool :  are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits, 
sent  forth  to  minister  for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of 
salvation  ?" 

Rev.  viii.  2.  "  And  1  saw  the  seven  angels  whicli 
stood  before  God,  and  to  them  were  given  seven  trum- 
pets. And  another  angel  came  and  stood  at  the  altar, 
having  a  golden  censer ;  and  there  was  given  unto  him 
much  incense,  that  he  should  offer  it  with  the  prayers 
of  all  the  saints  upon  the  golden  altar  which  was  before 
the  throne.  And  the  smoke  of  the  incense,  which 
came  with  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  ascended  up  be- 
fore God  out  of  the  angel's  hand," 

It  will  be  remarked  here,  tliat  it  is  not  said  that  one 
of  the  living  creatures  gave  the  seven  trumpets  to  the 
seven  angels.  And  we  think  that  tliis  reason  may  be 
given,  why  it  is  not  expressly  said  that  any  one  of  them 


gare  the  trumpets,  is,  that  the  trumpets  embrace  the 
whole  period  of  the  four  living  creatures.  The  seven  vi- 
als embrace  the  period  of  one  living  creature  only.  But 
how  did  this  one  living  creature  give  to  the  angels  the 
vials  full  of  the  wrath  of  God  ?  The  answer,  we  appre- 
hend, must  be,  that  the  fervent  prayers  of  pious  Chris- 
tians, for  the  downfall  of  Papism,  Mahometanism,  and 
every  Atheistical  andDeistical  superstition,  were  heard  : 
and  these  prayers  of  the  saints  ascended  up  before  God, 
out  of  the  angel's  hand.  Now,  in  the  twelfth  and  thir- 
teenth centuries,  as  well  as  every  succeeding  century, 
fervent  prayers  have  been  offered  up  for  the  abolition 
of  all  superstition,  by  a  vast  number  of  pious  Chris- 
tians. 

We  make  a  further  observation.  Greek  verbs  have 
more  tenses  or  times,  than  the  Latin,  or  any  modern 
languages  have.  And  it  is  highly  improbable,  that  any 
one  but  a  native  Grecian  ever  knew  how  to  make  use  of 
these  times,  in  the  precise  manner  that  the  Greeks  did. 
There  are  tenses  or  times  in  Greek  verbs,  called  indefi- 
nites, or  aorists,  from  their  signifying  an  uncertaia 
time.  A  learned  author  says  of  the  first  and  second 
aorist,  "  Though  they  seem  to  have  the  same  significa- 
tion, yet  it  is  highly  probable  they  were  not  indifferent- 
ly used  by  those  among  the  Greeks  who  spoke  their  lan- 
guage with  the  greatest  purity  and  propriety ;  as  the 
two  pluperfects  in  the  indicative,  the  two  imperfects 
and  pluperfects  in  the  subjunctive,  in  French,  are  pro- 
miscuously used  by  foreigners,  but  not  by  the  French 
themselves,  when  they  speak  with  accuracy  and  pro- 
priety." 

To  apply  these  observations,  we  observe,  that  the 
Knglish  verb  **  were  opened,^*  Rev.  xv.  5.  is,  in  Greek, 
an  indefinite  verb,  second  aorist,  passive. 


vu 

"We  now  produce  apassaeje  to  shew  that  such  verbs  ia 
Greek  do  not  precisely  mean  past,  present,  or  future 
time. 

Matt,  xxvii.  60,  51,  52.  "Jesus,  when  he  had  cried 
again  with  a  loud  voice,  jielded  up  the  Gliost :  and,  be- 
hold, the  vail  of  the  temple  was  rent  in  twain,  from  th» 
top  to  the  bottom,  and  the  earth  did  quake,  and  the 
rocks  rent,  and  the  graves  were  opened,  and  many  dead 
bodies  of  the  saints  arose." 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  a  plain  English  reader 
would  say,  that  all  these  events  were,  in  point  of  time, 
immediately  connected  with  Jesus*  yielding  up  the 
Ghost.  The  fact,  however,  is  otherwise  :  for  the  53d 
verse  says,  "  and  came  out  of  tlieir  graves  after  his  re- 
surrection." The  verb  here  <*  were  opened,**  is  from 
the  same  root  as  that  in  Rev.  xv.  5.  but  it  is  in  the  first 
indefinite  time  passive  :  and  why  it  is  so,  I  presume  no 
one  of  the  present  age  can  inform  us. 

These  indefinite  verbs  are  very  frequently  made  use 
of  in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  subject  treated  of 
is  very  important  to  the  inquisitive  mind.  "We  will  ad- 
duce only  two  or  three  examples. 

Luke  xxiiL  43.  "  And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  verily,  I 
say  unto  thee  to-day,  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise.** 
Here  the  Greek  verb  translated  thou  shalt  be,  is  disput- 
able with  grammarians,  both  as  to  voice  and  tense.  "We 
find,  John  xx.  17.  "  Touch  me  not,  for  I  am  not  yet  as- 
cended to  my  Father."  These  words  Jesus  spake  to 
Mary,  after  his  resurrection. 

1  P.  iii.  19.  "  He  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits 
in  prison.'*  The  Greek  participle  translated  "  h« 
went,*'  is  indefinite,  as  to  time. 

I  will  make  but  a  single  obser\'ation  more,  which  is. 


VIU 

that  I  am  determined  to  avoid  controTcrsy ;  and  that 
no  notice  will  be  taken  of  any  strictures  that  may  be 
made  on  any  of  the  three  letters,  except  by  confessing 
the  errors  I  may  have  fallen  into,  when  I  clearly  per- 
ceive them  to  be  errors. 


TO 


JOHN  B.  ROMEYN5  D.D. 

KEV.  SIR, 

In  addressing  the  following  letter  to  you  personal- 
ly, I  presume  I  shall  not  transgress  against  any  rule 
of  politeness.  As  an  eminent  evangelical  Minister 
of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  3^our  public  ministra- 
tions, and  parochial  assiduities,  command  my  affec- 
tionate esteem  and  respect.  In  a  very  short  time, 
they  have,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  been  made  suc- 
cessful in  this  City,  beyond  the  most  sanguine  ex- 
pectation. May  you  long  have  the  inexpressible 
satisfaction  of  being  a  witness  to  the  efficacy  of  Gos- 
pel grace,  and  that  faith  which  purifieth  the  heait, 
worketh  by  love,  and  overcometh  the  world. 

I  have  lately  perused,  with  attention,  two  Sermons 
delivered  by  yourself  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  city  of  Albany,  on  a  day  of  fasting,  humiliation, 
and  prayer,  recommended  by  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  to 
be  observed  Thursday,  Sept.  8,  1808.  In  these 
sermons,  exclusive  of  many  other  serious  and  im- 
portant matters,  you  have  brought  into  view  the  pre- 
sent momentous  aspect  of  the  world,  more  especial- 
ly as  to  two  quarters  of  the  globe ;  and  you  ha^e 


supposed,  that  many  characteristic  descriptions  in 
the  prophecies  plainly  have  reference  to  the  present 
time ;  and  that  some  severe  judgments,  prophetical- 
ly denounced,  are  in  part  executed,  and  in  due 
course  of  execution. 

I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  an  examination  of 
your  explanations  of  prophecy,  but  simply  to  give 
my  own  ideas  of  some  of  the  prophecies.  The 
truth,  and  not  refutation,  is  all  I  am  in  pursuit  of. 
My  plan  will  lead  me  to  a  general  view  of  the  pro- 
phecies which  more  particularly  respect  wicked  tem- 
poral powers.  Within  a  few  years  past,  several  au- 
thors have  given  us  voluminous  works  on  the  pro- 
phecies ;  and  there  is  some  probability,  that  increas- 
ed attention  will  produce  much  more  than  has 
hitherto  appeared.  From  what  I  have  collected  in 
conversing  with  intelligent  Christians,  I  am  persuad- 
ed that  very  few  will  undertake  to  read  two  large 
octavo  volumes  on  the  prophecies ;  and  no  professed 
author  of  late  appears  short  of  two  such  volumes. 

It  has  occurred  to  me,  that  in  a  pamphlet  of  a  hun- 
dred pages,  the  land-marks,  the  great  leading  and 
important  features  of  prophecy,  may  all  be  contained, 
especially  such  as  respect  great  temporal  and  wicked 
powers.  And  if  so,  the  important  descriptions  of  pro- 
phecy, being  laid  nearer  together,  the  reader's  me- 
mory will  better  enable  him  to  compare  one  thing 
with  another. 

The  study  of  prophecy  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the 
most  aiduous  and  difficult  that  a  man  caii  engage  in. 


I 


Patience  and  perseverance  in  investigating,  storing 
up  a  great  variety  of  historic  facts  in  the  memory, 
and  reflecting  on  them  for  a  long  time,  and  ver\-  care- 
fully comparing  them,  are  essential  requisites  in  a 
student  of  God's  word,  which  gives  us  a  narrative 
of  facts  long  before  the}-  had  any  existence. 

If  ever  it  were  a  duty  incumbent  on  the  Ministers 
of  the  Gospel,  it  is  in  an  especial  manner  so  at  this 
time,  to  adhere  to  St.  Paul's  fixed  resolution — "  I 
determined  not  to  know  any  thing  among  you, 
save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified."  1  Cor.  ii.  2. 
The  words  of  our  Saviour,  Matt.  xxiv.  38,  39,  are 
very  solemn  indeed ;  and,  in  the  course  of  forty 
years,  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  e^er  heard  any  Minis- 
ter take  them  as  his  text,  and  discourse  upon  them 
— "  For  as  in  the  days  that  were  before  the  flood, 
"  they  were  eating  and  drinking,  marrying  and  giv- 
"  ing  in  marriage,  until  the  day  that  Noah  entered 
"  into  the  ark,  and  knew  not,  until  the  flood  came 
''  and  took  them  all  away  :  so  shall  also  the  co7ning 
"  of  the  Son  of  Man  he.''''  The  first  part  of  this 
text  is  a  plain  narrative  of  facts  ;  and  if  the  last  part 
be  not  so  also,  it  is  a  solitary  exception  to  a  rule  laid 
do^vn  by  able  and  eminent  expositors,  which  is,  that 
the  meaning  of  words  is  to  be  ascertained  from  their 
connexion  with  other  words.  The  coming  of  the 
son  of  man  must  therefore  be  a  literal  coming,  other- 
wise the  rule  does  not  here  hold. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  know  why  I  address 
this  Letter  to  voii,  I  will  here  make  several  extracts 


from  your  sermons,  without  which,  he  would  remain 
in  ignorance. 

One  thing  I  know  to  be  a  fact ;  they  are  not  made 
with  any  pohtical  view  whatever.  If  in  my  views 
of  prophecy  I  am  incon-ect,  I  shall  be  extremely 
obliged  to  you  to  point  out  the  error ;  being  persuad- 
ed that  you  would  do  it  with  Christian  candour — 
that  you  would  reason,  and  not  rail. 

Page  12.  "  We  are  indubitably  in  that  period 
'*  which  is  called  in  Scripture,  *  the  last  days,'  and 
"  drawing  near  to  ihe  end  thereof.  The  three  great 
"  monai'chies,  the  Babylonian,  Persian,  and  Grecian, 
"  mentioned  by  Daniel,  have,  in  succession,  disap- 
"  peared  from  the  theatre  of  the  world,  and  made 
"  way  for  the  Roman,  which  is  the  fourth,  and  still 
"  exists,  though  broken  or  divided  into  various 
"  parts  by  the  irruption  and  establishment  of  the 
"  northern  Barbarians  within  its  extensive  borders. 

*'  These  parts,  or  kingdoms,  were  originally  ten, 
"  according  to  the  prophecies  of  Scripture,  and  the 
"  particular  account  of  historians.  Without  enu- 
"  merating  them,  suffice  it  to  say,  they  possessed  that 
"  range  of  territory  which  now  includes  Spain,  Por- 
"  tugal,  France,  Switzerland,  Germany  south  of  the 
"  Danube,  Hungary,  Italy,  Britain,  Belgium,  and 
"  Holland.  From  amongst  these  ten  kingdoms,  the 
"  spiritual  empire  of  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
"  arisen,  which  Daniel  predicted  under  the  emblem 
"  of  the  little  horn  of  the  fourth  beast ;  and  ^^  hich 
"  John  saw  as  a  two-horned  beast  rising  out  of  the 


*'  earth.  This  grand  apostasy,  we  are  informed,  is 
"  to  last  for  a  time,  times,  and  the  dividing  ol"  time  : 
*'  which  is  the  same  with  forty-two  prophetic 
"  months,  or  twelve  hundred  and  sixty  prophetic 
"  da}s,  answering,  according  to  common  ealciila- 
*'  tion,  to  so  many  years.  If  we  date  its  commence- 
*'  ment  from  the  year  606,  when  Phocas,  Emperor 
''  of  Constantinople,  constituted  Boniface,  the  Bi- 
''  shop  of  Rome,  Universal  Bishop,  or  Supreme 
■ '  Head  in  spiritual  matters ;  or  from  the  year  756, 
"  when  Pepin  made  a  grant  of  the  Exarchate  of  Ra- 
''  venna,  and  of  a  district  of  country  along  the  Adri- 
"  atic,  called  Pentapolis,  to  the  Pope,  by  which  he 
"  became  a  temporal  prince,  it  is  evident,  that  we 
"  are  not  far  from  the  end  of  the  whole  period. 

"  This  grand  apostasy — this  spiritual  empire  of 
•■'  Rome,  is  pre-eminently  infamous  for  the  crimes 
"  it  has  originated,  committed,  defended,  nay,  in 
''  which  it  has  gloried.  The  records  of  a  brothel 
*'  would  be  chaste,  and  the  annals  of  robbers  guilt- 
"  less,  when  compared  with  the  history  of  this  pre- 
''  tended  Church  of  Christ.'' 

Three  notes  in  the  appendix  are  applicable  to  this 
passage. 

1.  "  Vitringa  thinks  that  the  24th,  25th,  26th, 
"  and  27th  chapters  of  Isaiah,  were  partly  accom- 
"  plished  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  in  those  of 
"  the  Apostles,  that  of  Constantine,  and  at  the  refor- 
"  mation  from  Popery  ;  but  that  they  will  be  more 
"  amply  fulfilled  in  the  latter  day  glory,  when  Anti- 


'^  Christ  shall  be  destroyed,  Rome  laid  in  ashes,  and 
"  the  Dragon  cast  into  the  bottomless  pit.  He  con- 
*'  siders  the  enemies  of  the  Church,  in  the  times  of 
*'  the  Maccabees,  as  typical  of  the  popish  adversa- 
"  ries  ;  and  that,  therefore,  her  deliverance  in  the  one 
"  period,  was  typical  of  her  deliverance  in  the  other." 

2.  "  Thus  the  Angel  told  Daniel,  chap.  vii.  24. 
"  and  one  of  the  seven  angels,  John.  Mev.  xvii.  2. 
"  Several  interpreters  have  attempted  a  list  of  these 
"  kingdoms,  for  M^hich  see  Faber's  dissertation,  Vol. 
"  I.  p.  179.  2d  edit.  Lon.  In  some  of  the  cata- 
'^'  logues,  the  dukedom  of  Ravenna  is  included. 
"  This,  as  it  never  was  an  independent  kingdom, 
"  cannot  be  meant,  as  Faber  shows  in  the  place 
^'  above  quoted.  In  others,  the  Vandals ;  and  in 
"  others,  the  Saracens  of  Africa  are  mentioned :  but 
"  neither  of  these  supported  the  first  beast  in  its 
"  idolatry  and  persecution  of  the  true  Church;  and 
"  yet  it  is  expressly  said,  the  ten  kings  gave  their 
"  power  and  strength  to  the  beast.  Hev.  xvii;  13. 
"  Lowman  supposes,  from  the  use  which  is  made  of 
"  ten  in  prophetic  language,  to  denote  several ;  that 
"  there  is  no  necessity  for  finding  the  precise  num- 
"  ber  of  te?t  kingdoms  erected  on  the  ruins  of  the 
"  Roman  empire  ;  but  only  of  several,  which  is  fact; 
"  and  this  fact  is  a  memorable  event  of  providence, 
"  and  a  distinguishing  mark  of  this  period  of  pro- 
"  phecy. 

3.  "  Faber,  in  his  dissertation  on  the  prophecies, 
"  appears  to  me  to  have  satisfactorily  shown,  that 


"  the  tiuo  horned  beast  is  the  spiritual  empire  ol* 
"  Rome,  as  distinct  from  the  ten  horned  beast,  which 
"  is  the  temporal  Roman  empire  in  its  idolatrous  and 
"  persecuting  state.  Bishop  Newton  supposes  this 
"  spiritual  empire  commenced  in  the  year  727,  when 
"  the  dukedom  of  Ravenna  became  the  property  of 
"  the  Roman  Pontiff.  He  mentions  other  memor- 
"  able  instances  in  the  eic:hth  centurv.  The  two 
''  aeras  mentioned  in  the  discourse,  are  supported  by 
"  the  strongest  arguments.  Time  alone  can  deter- 
''  mine  the  true  one." 

Page  14.  "  The  City  of  Rome  itself,  it  is  proba- 
"  ble,  will  literally  be  burned  with  fire  from  the 
"  bowels  of  the  earth,  and  sink,  like  a  millstone,  with 
"  all  its  inhabitants,  never  to  rise.  The  spiritual 
"  empire  of  the  Pope  will  be  destroyed  with  cir- 
"  cumstances  of  uncommon  violence  ;  for  saith  the 
"  angel  to  John,  '  The  ten  horns  which  thou  sawest 
"  upon  the  beast,  these  shall  hate  the  whore,  and 
*'  shall  make  her  desolate  and  naked,  and  shall  eat 
"  her  flesh  and  burn  her  with  fire.'  She  will  be 
"  overtaken  with  the  Lord's  indignation  in  a  time 
''  of  carelessness,  gayety,  and  security,  as  ancient 
"  Bab}  Ion  w'as.  Her  followers  will  rejoice  and  be 
"  merry,  and  send  gifts  to  each  other,  at  the  slaying 
''  of  the  witnesses;  but  in  three  days  and  a  half,  a 
"  short  time,  the  witnesses  will  rise,  and  then  the 
*'  kingdoms  of  this  world,  shall  become  the  king- 
"  doms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ.  When  she 
"'^  saith,  I  sit  a  queen,  and  am  no  widow,  and  shall 


8 

"  see  no  sorrow  ;  then  shall  her  plagues  come  in  one 
"  day,  death,  and  mourning,  and  famine. 

"  Though  her  final  destruction  shall  thus  be  sud- 
"  den  or  in  a  very  short  time,  yet  preparations  for  it 
"  will  be  making  many  years  previous.  These 
"  seem  to  have  begun.  History  produces  no  paral- 
"  lei  to  the  events  now  passing  on  the  theatre  of  ac- 
"  tion.  The  indignation  of  the  Lord  began  in 
"  France — It  has  marched  in  awful  majesty  over 
"  Germany — It  has  fallen  with  tremendous  force  on 
"  Northern  Italy — It  has  overwhelmed  Switzer- 
"  land  and  Holland :  and  now,  like  a  tempest,  is 
"  beating  on  Spain  and  Portugal.  The  seat  of  the 
"  wars  which  have  sprung  from  the  French  Revolu- 
"  tion,  have  been  chiefly  in  Germany  and  Italy  ;  and 
*'  what  places  have  been  more  devoted  to  the  grand 
"  apostasy  than  these  and  France,  if  we  except 
"  Spain  and  Portugal?  In  France,  what  blood  has 
"  been  spilt !  what  massacres  and  cruelties  perpe- 
"  trated  for  the  interests  of  superstition  !  Nor  has 
"  Germany  or  Italy  been  behind-hand.  And  as 
"  for  Spain,  I  need  only  remark,  that  there  the 
*'  merciless  inquisition  has  reigned  dominant  for 
"  years.  In  all  these  nations  the  followers  of  Jesus 
"  have  been  persecuted  ;  his  heritage  has  been  op- 
**  pressed.  And  of  the  monarchs  who  engaged  in 
"  this  work,  the  family  of  Capet,  especially  that 
"  branch  of  it  which  is  called  the  house  of  Bourbon 
"  and  the  house  of  Austria,  have  been  foremost. 
"  Tyrants  they  have  been  to  the  people  of  the  Most 


9 

**  High  :  now,  in  their  turn,  they  are  made  to  eat  thfi 
"  fruit  of  their  doings. — Now  God  is  requiring,  at 
^'  their  hands,  the  blood  they  have  iniquitously  shed. 
*'  Let  none  imagine  that  I  justify  the  conduct  of  the 
"  revolutionary  leaders   of    France   who    beheaded 
"  their  king,  and  drove  his   connexions  from  the 
"  country  ;    or,   of  the    scourge   of  God,  who  has 
"  crippled  by  fraud  and  violence  the  house  of  Aus- 
"  tria.     Like  Sennacherib,  they  have  been  the  rods 
"  of  Jehovah's  anger.     But  no  thanks  to  them  ;  they 
"  meant  not  so.     Because  they  are  the  instruments 
"  of  God's  vengeance,  we  are  not  to  defend  them 
*'  in  their  iniquity.    As  well  might  a  Jew  in  the  days 
**  of  Hezekiah,  have  said  of  Sennacherib,  that  it  was 
*'  in  vain  to  oppose  him,  for  he  was  raised  up  to 
"  punish  the  nations,  as  any  one  in  the  present  day 
"  may  say  so  of  the  furious  the  insolent,  the  unprin- 
"  cipled  oppressor  of  Europe.     Nay,  more  ;  if  it  be 
"  correct  to  put  no  hindrances   in  his  way,  but,  on 
*'  the  contrary,  to  favour  his  plans,  because  we  think 
"  he  is  marching  in  a  course  prescribed  by  God, 
"  the  witnesses  to  the  truth,  \vho  opposed  the  grand 
"  apostasy  for  1260  years,  were  guilty  of  a  crime. 
*'  But  no,  they  were  riglit :  and  so  are  they  right, 
"  who  now  stand  in  the  breach  to  defend  their  pri- 
"  vileges,  and  their  very  existence  against  destruc- 
"  tion.     We  know  not  the  secret  will  of  God,  but? 
"  must  be  guided  by  his  revealed  \vord.     To  say 
*'  that  this  bids  us  to  countenance  fraud,  robberv;, 


10 

"  and  murder,  is  blasphemy ;  it  is  an  outrage  on 
"  the  God  of  Heaven.  The  iniquity  of  the  offend- 
"  ing  nation  does  not  justify  the  iniquity  of  the 
"  punishing'  instrument.  Because  England,  or 
"  Spain,  or  other  nations,  may  have  transgressed  the 
"  i  lb  of  righteousness,  Napoleon  is  not  innocent 
**  when  he  transgresses  them.  Who,  then,  can  de- 
"  fend  his  conduct,  who,  without  a  warrant,  with  no 
"  commission  but  his  success,  sports  with  the  rights 
"  of  independent  sovereignties ;  exacts  tribute  from 
'*  nations  not  his  own ;  and  says  to  this  king,  Go, 
"  and  he  goeth ;  and  to  that,  Come,  and  he  cometh? 
"  It  were  madness  to  attempt  it  on  religious  or  moral 
*'  grounds. 

"  But  this  modern  Attilla,  this  scourge  of  God,  is 
"  permitted  also  to  afflict  the  protestant  countries  of 
"  Switzerland,  Holland,  Prussia,  and  the  protestant 
"  principalities  of  Germany,  Whence  is  this? 
"  Have  not  these  countries  come  out  from  the  midst 
"  of  mystical  Babylon  by  their  reformation  ?  Yes, 
*'  they  have  in  part,  but  not  entirely.  Nominally, 
"  Holland,  as  a  nation,  was  on  the  side  of  truth,  and 
"  her  sons  long  displayed  its  purity  in  theory  and 
"  practice.  But,  for  yeai*s,  the  way  has  heen  pre- 
"  paring  for  her  present  state.  Infidelity  and  luke- 
"  v/armness  had  crept  into  her  borders,  infected 
"  her  great  men,  and  poisoned  the  very  springs  of 
"  her  religious  existence.  The  principles  of  the 
"  Man  of  Sin  are  so  incorporated  with  the  political 
<*  institutions,  the  habits,  the  relations  of  the  Euro- 


n 

•'  ]5eaii  world,  that  when  he  is  punished,  protestants 
"  cannot  wliolly  escape.  They,  however,  share  in 
"  the  general  visitation,  according  to  their  rightcous- 
"  ness  or  wickedness. 

"  But  one  power  opposes  him,  and  that  is  Britain. 
**  He  harasses  licr,  he  vexes  her,  and  disturbs  her 
"  peace  with  other  nations ;  but  he  cannot,  as  yet, 
"  subdue.  Her  government  is  indeed  stained  witli 
"  crimes  :  but  I  would  say  to  those  subjects  of  other 
"  governments,  who  are  continually  clamouring 
"  against  these  crimes,  as  Christ  said  to  the  persons 
"  who  brought  the  adultress  to  him,  let  that  govern- 
*'  ment  which  is  innocent,  cast  the  first  stone.  If 
"  her's  be  bad,  theirs  are  no  better.  She  has  to  an- 
"  swer  for  much  blood  of  protestants  unrighteously 
"  spilt  under  the  Stuart  family  ;  but  ^ve  hope  the 
"  expulsion  of  that  deluded  family,  and  the  establish- 
'^  ment  of  a  toleration,  since  the  revolution,  have 
"  wiped  away  her  guilt. 

"  Many  augur  favourably  from  the  stand  which 
"  the  Spanish  Patriots  are  making ;  hoping  thatj 
"  through  their  means,  liberty  will  be  once  more  rc- 
*'  stored  to  the  sovereignties  of  Europe.  I  most 
*'  fervently  wish  them  success,  but  fear  the  issue. 
"  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  Spain  has  been  one 
"  of  the  nations  most  devoted  and  infatuated  in  its 
"  attachment  to  the  Man  of  Sin  ;  and  even  now  she 
"  glories  in  his  impious  principles,  confidently  ap- 
"  pealing  for  success  to  a  sinful  worm  of  the  earth, 
"  whom  they  worship  as  a  goddess — I  mean  the 


12 

"  Virgin  Mar}'.  It  is  here  that  the  inquisition  has 
"  reigned  Avith  unlimited  power  since  the  year 
"  1484  ;  and  the  most  degrading  antichristian  su- 
*'  perstitions  have  been  pertinaciously  cherished. 
*'  For  her  cruelties  and  blasphemies,  this  nation  has 
"  never  yet  been  visited. 

"  If  they,  (the  Spanish  patriots,)  are  subdued,  he 
"  who  subdues  them,  with  but  few  exceptions,  per- 
"  haps  only  Africa  and  Great-Britain,  will  be  master 
*■'  of  the  same  countries  which  formerly  constituted 
*'  the  western  Roman  empire.  He  may  be  consider- 
"  ed,  strit  tly,  as  the  successor  of  Charlemagne, 
■■'  whose  title  and  rank  as  Emperor  of  the  West,  has 
"  descended  down  through  the  Emperors  of  Germa- 
"  ny,  by  virtue  of  their  title  as  king  of  the  Romans  ; 
"  and  their  possessions  in  Italy,  to  the  present  Em- 
*'  peror  of  Austria,  who  relinquished  both.  To  him 
"  the  French  Emperor  has  succeeded,  as  king  of 
"  Italy,  being  crowned  with  the  iron  crown  of  Char- 
"  lemagne.  In  this  character,  according  to  a  modern 
"  writer,  (Faber,)  on  the  prophecy,  whose  opinion 
"  on  this  subject  I  cordially  embrace,  we  see  in  him 
"  tlie  eighth  head  of  the  Roman  beast,  which  is  of 
"  the  seven,  and  began  with  Charlemagne,  whose 
"  patriciate  was  the  seventh,  and  lasted  but  a  short 
"  time,  giving  way  to  his  imperial  authority,  which 
*•'  was  the  eighth.  By  one  of  the  Emperors  of  this 
•'  line,  it  seems,  the  witnesses,  of  whom  we  shall 
"  presently  speak,  are  to  be  slam,  and  the  Roman 
''  hierarchy  established  Avith  additional  splendour 
''  and  power  ;  thou a;h  only  for  a  little  while.     Whe- 


13 

"  ther  he  who  now  fills  the  throne,  or  the  dynast}' 
*'  he  has  placed  upon  it,  in  one  of  its  future  mem- 
*'  bers,  will  be  the  agent,  Me  know  not.  Let  us  for 
•'  a  moment  attend  to  the  following  particulars  :  after 
"  which  I  shall  offer  a  few  explanatory  remarks  on 
'*  the  witnesses  and  their  death. 

"  1.  The  witnesses  commenced  their  testimony 
"  with  the  rise  of  the  grand  apostasy.  They  i\rc  to  be 
"  slain  when  their  testimony  is  just  finished;  which 
"  will  be  towards  the  end  of  1260  years,  the  period 
"  of  the  grand  apostasy.  If  that  be  near  its  close, 
**  their  death  cannot  be  far  off.  Either  the  present 
"  generation,  or  that  which  succeeds  it,  will  proba- 
"  bly  see  the  doleful  period. 

*'  2.  The  Catholic  superstition,  in  all  its  disgust- 
"  ing  features,  is  restored  in  France  by  the  Emperor, 
"  and  is  intimately  iuid  inseparably  connected  with 
"  his  authority.  In  a  catechism  published  under  the 
"  sanction  of  Napoleon,  for  the  use  of  the  Churches 
"  in  his  dominions,  it  is  said,  he  is  become  the 
"  anointed  of  the  Lord,  by  the  consecration  which 
"  he  has  received  from  the  chief  Pontiff,  head  of  the 
"  universal  Church.  In  this  same  work,  the  doc- 
"  trines  of  transubstantiation,  purgatory,  indulgen- 
"  ces,  and  other  absurdities  and  falsehoods,  are 
"  taught.  Duty  to  empire  is  placed  along  side  of 
"  duty  to  Church  ;  and  the  deduction  is,  no  one  can 
"  be  a  good  subject,  who  is  not  a  good  Catholic. 
"  Every  nerve  is  exerted  to  restore  the  popular  re- 
"  verence  for  relics,  and  all  the  mummery  of  the  Man 
"  of  Sin,  among  a  people  not  long  back  professed 
"  atheists. 


14 

"  3.  A  Popish  Cardinal  is  appointed  by  Napo- 

"  leon  to  be  the  chief  of  the  Church  over  all  the 

^'  congregations  in  the  Rhenish  Confederation ;  and 

"  he  has  actually  been  acknowledged  as  such  by  all 

'*  the  protestant  princes.     I'he  protestant  clergy  are 

"  constrained  to  lay  aside  the  dress  they  have  hitherto 

"  worn,  and  adopt  mass- weeds.     A  great  number  of 

"  catholic  mass-books  have  been  printed  in  the  Ger- 

"  man  language,  which  are   divided  into  hours  of 

"  prayer,  and  which  are  now  actually  read  before 

"  preaching  at  the  altar  in  the  protestant  Churches 

"  on  the  frontiers.     According  to  accounts  from  that 

"  quarter,  the  late  apostasy  of  religion  in  France  and 

"  elsewhere,  is  universally  attributed  to  the  want  of 

"  respect  for  the  Pope. 

"  4.  Napoleon  has  constituted  a  professedly  po- 
"  pish  government  over  Holland,  Switzerland,  and 
"  the  Rhenish  Confederation.  The  religion  of  Rome 
"  is  the  court  religion  of  almost  all  the  ancient  ten 
"  kingdoms. 

"  These  circumstances  combined,  strengthen  the 
"  conjecture,  that  the  family  now  seated  on  tlie  im- 
"  perial  throne,  will  be  the  agents  for  slaying  the 
"  witnesses  and  re-establishing  m  Europe  the  grand 
*'  apostasy. 

"  By  the  witnesses  are  meant  faithful  Christians  in 
"  general — all  the  true  followers  of  Jesus  Christ,  as 
"  distinct  from  apostates  and  false  professors.  This 
"  is  evident  from  the  name  given  them  of,  *  the  two 
"  candlesticks  and  the  two  olive  trees,  which  stand 
*'  before  the  God  of  the  whole  earth  ;*  in  which  allu- 


15 

"  sion  is  made  to  a  prophetic  vision  of  Zechariah. 
'*  They  are  said  to  be  two  in  niimlicr,  because  that  is 
"  the  number  required  in  the  bw  and  approved  by 
"  tlie  Gospel. 

"  No  calamity  has  yet  befallen  the  true  Church 
"  by  the  hands  of  the  Man  of  Sin,  the  son  of  perdi- 
"  tion,  which  answers  in  a  satisfactory  manner  to  the 
*'  symbolical  representation  of  slaying  the  two  uit- 
''  nesses.  The  faithful  followers  of  Jesus,  who  arc 
"  meant  by  them,  have  never  yet  generally,  through- 
"  out  the  western  empire,  at  any  one  period,  ceased 
"  from  their  testimony  against  the  grand  apostasy. 
"  They  have  visibly  existed  as  witnesses  for  the 
"  truth,  in  one  part,  if  they  have  been  destroyed  in 
"  another  :  and  yet  an  universal  destruction  of  them 
•'  seems  to  be  meant.  This  cannot  be  a  destruction 
"  of  their  civil  privileges,  nor  a  deprivation  of  the 
"  existence  which  they  formerly  had  as  members  of 
"  society  ;  for  their  characters  of  witnesses,  and  their 
**  work  of  prophesying,  relates  not  to  political,  but  to 
"  spiritual  matters. 

**  The  witnesses  still  prophecy  in  sackcloth ;  that 
"  is,  the  true  Church  is  still  in  a  suffering  depressed 
"  state.  Even  where  protestant  principles  are  pro- 
"  fessed,  the  ways  of  Zion  mourn,  through  the  uni- 
''  versid  prevalence  of  essential  errors,  of  studied  in- 
^'  difference  to  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  of  gross 
"  immorality.  The  very  spirit  of  tlie  Man  of  Sin 
"  too  much  pervades  and  animates  the  communities 
"  which  have  Aisibly  separated  from  him.     Many  of 


16 

"  his  superstitious  rites  are  retained  with  pertinacity 
"  by  some  of  them ;  and  he  himself  is  no  longer 
"  viewed  as  the  son  of  perdition,  even  the  wicked 
"  one,  whom  the  Lord  will  consume  with  the  spirit 
"  of  his  mouth.  The  true  Church  is  evidently, 
*'  therefore,  still  held  in  bondage  ;  the  witnesses  still, 
**  therefore,  prophecy  in  sackcloth.  If  th&y  have 
"  been  slain,  they  have  not  yet  been  raised ;  for  their 
"  death  will  be,  not  only  the  last  persecution  of  pro- 
*^  testants,  but  the  last  stage  of  their  depression, 
"  which  will  be  followed  by  a  glorious  day  for  the 
'*  true  Church.  The  true  Church  will  become  do- 
"  minant  over  her  adversaries  throughout  their  terri- 
"  tories. 

"  The  witnesses,  it  is  expressly  said,  will  be  slain, 
"  not  when  they  shall  have  finished  their  testimony, 
'*  as  we  read,  but  when  they  shall  draw  near  the  close 
"  of  it.  As  they  commenced  their  testimony  with 
"  the  grand  apostasy,  so  they  run  pai'allel  to  it  in 
"  time,  and  will  be  brought  to  *  violent  end,  three 
"  prophetic  days  and  a  half  before  its  termination. 
"  As  many  years,  in  all  probability,  will  elapse  before 
"  this,  half  a  century  at  least,  with  moral  certainty 
"  we  may  conclude,  that  the  witnesses  are  still  pro- 
"  phesying  in  sackcloth.  But  as  these  years  con- 
**  stitute  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  whole  num- 
"  ber,  1260,  the  witnesses  arc,  strictly,  drawing  near 
"  the  close  of  their  testimony. 

"  Such  are  the  chief  grounds  on  which  the  opinion 
"  rests,  that  the  prophetic  period,  of  A\hich  we  have 


17 

'*  been  speaking,  is  yet  to  come.     It  will  be  a  period 
"  of  calamity,  distress,    impiety,   ferocity,    tyranny, 
"  superstition,     and     gross    ignorance — A    period 
"  darker  than  the  middle  ages  ;  for  e^en  then  the 
"  witnesses  prophesied,   though  in  sackcloth  :    but 
"  now  they  will  be  dead,  and  their  dead  bodies  will 
"  lie  unburied,  to  feast  the  malice  of  their  foes — A 
"  period  in  wliich  the  principles  of  civilization  will 
"  be   destroyed   by    those   of  barbarian  rudeness. 
"  The  state  of  society  will  be  deplorable,  both  as  it 
"  respects  intercourse  between  man  and  man,  and 
"  nation  with  nation.     The  bonds  of  union  will  be 
"  dissevered ;  the    foundations    of  order   torn   up ; 
"  and  a  lawless,  unprincipled,  and  superstitious  ty- 
"  ranny,  in  church  and  state,  will  prevail ;  not  in  one 
"  nation,  but  throughout  the  spiritual  Sodom  and 
"  Egypt — the  mystical  Babylon  among  all  the  ten 
"  kingdoms  which    have  given  their  power  to  the 
"  beast." 

I  make  but  a  single  observation  more,  which  is, 
that  I  am  persuaded  your  candour  and  goodness  of 
heart  will  excuse  me  for  my  api^earing  in  a  more 
methodical  dress  than  is  customary  in  unreserved 
epistolary'  cwrespondenee. 


CHAPTER  I, 


I 


T  is  impossible  to  form  a  correct  and  connected 
view  of  the  prophecies,  until  we  have  satisfactorily 
arranged,  in  our  own  minds,  the  prophetic  periods 
which  we  find  recorded  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
The  periods  are  unquestionably  precise,  regular,  and 
connected,  and  have  no  double  or  treble  application ; 
which  idea  some  learned  men  having  adopted,  has 
been  an  occasion  of  their  falling  into  great  confusion 
and  error.  Wherever  the  sacred  Scriptures  give  us 
a  plain  prophetic  period,  if  profane  chronology  does 
not  agree  with  it,  the  Scripture  periods  are  to  be 
strictly  adhered  to. 

1.  The  prophetic  periods  which  have  relation  to 
the  Jewish  dispensation,  are  precise,  regular,  and  ex- 
plicit. The  term  year  was  made  use  of  so  as  to  em- 
brace summer  and  winter,  seed  time  and  harvest, 
without  any  concealed  or  mystical  signification. 
And  thus,  though  the  solar  year  was  not  accurately 
known,  that  mode  of  reckoning  could  not,  in  any 
great  period  of  time,  make  it  vary  from  the  true  so- 
lar years  contained  in  it.  Thucidides  informs  us, 
that,  in  writing  his  history,  he  made  his  years  seve- 
rally consist  of  one  summer  and  one  winter ;  which 
method  preserved  the  true  solar  year.  The  term 
year  is  frequently  made  use  of  in  the  Scriptures, 
and  has  been  unanimously  explained  by  all  commen- 


19 

tators,  (as  a  very  learned  investigator  of  prophetic 
periods  asserts,)  to  mean  a  true  solar  year.  The  400 
years  of  the  sojourning  of  Abraham's  seed ;  the  70 
years  embraced  by  the  Babylonish  captivity  ;  God's 
patience  and  forbearance  to  Israel  for  390  years ;  and 
to  Judah  for  40  years,  and  many  other  periods  ex- 
pressed  by  the  term  year  or  years,  have  been  so 
unanimously  explained  to  mean  so  many  solar  years, 
and  the  completion  of  them  so  exactly  coinciding 
witli  this  idea,  must  put  the  matter  beyond  dispute 
with  all  reasonable  men. 

2.  It  is  confessed,  that  the  Scriptures  make  use 
of  terms  that  seem  to  be  enigmatical,  whereby  great 
periods  of  time  are  unquestionably  intended ;  and 
oonvey  an  idea,  that  a  day  intends  a  year :  and  some 
have,  I  think,  unreasonably  decided,  that,  by  the 
term  day,  a  solar  year  is  not  intended.  One  instance 
alone  entirely  confutes  this  idea  :  and  the  Jews  them- 
selves acknowledge  it  to  be  one  of  the  most  clear 
and  explicit  prophecies  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  Old 
Testament — which  is  Daniel's  70  weeks,  which  they 
expound  of  so  many  solar  years  to  each  week,  as 
there  are  natural  days  in  a  common  week.  The 
period  of  time  is  here  expressed  in  the  supposed 
enigmatical  language  or  words,  whicli  we  shall  fre- 
quently meet  with  in  other  passages  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, expressing  great  periods  of  time.  We,  there- 
fore, conclude,  that  the  supposed  enigmatical  terms, 
must  always  have  the  same  precise  ideas  affixed  to 
them  ;  for  otherwise  the  prophecies  would  lead  to 
endless  uncertainty  and  confusion.     The   term  day 


20 

being  a  standard  term,  yet  having  no  precise  mea- 
sure of  duration,  would  render  all  attempts  at  com- 
putation fruitless  and  vain.  The  Christian  Church 
has  always  contended  earnestly  for  the  construction 
put  upon  Daniel's  70  weeks  by  the  Jews.  It  is  one 
of  the  strong  foundations  of  her  faith.  This  pro- 
phecy being  one  of  primary  impoitance,  imdisputed, 
and  unquestioned,  is  undoubtedly  a  rule  by  which 
Ave  must  be  guided  in  explaining  the  periods  of 
time  embraced  by  other  prophecies  delivered  to  us 
in  similar  supposed  enigmatical  language. 

3.  Some  have  supposed  that  there  is  a  mystery  in 
the  terms  time,  times,  and  an  half;  42  months,  and 
1260  days  or  years  :  and  commentators,  having  ta- 
ken a  liberty  v/hich  they  had  no  right  or  ground  for 
taking,  have  done  an  injury  to  prophecy,  by  making 
that  dubious  and  uncertain  which  is  clear  and  ex- 
plicit. The  Jews,  by  the  Levitical  law,  were  ob- 
liged to  observe  natural  days,  weeks,  months,  and 
years.  The  eating  of  the  paschal  lamb,  though  it 
was  to  be  celebrated  once  a  year,  yet  from  the  eating 
of  it  in  one  year,  to  the  eating  of  it  in  the  next  year, 
could  not  be  precisely  at  the  end  of  a  solar  year ;  be- 
cause it  was  to  be  eaten  at  the  time  of  a  particular 
full  moon.  Ferguson  says,  "  The  Jews  reckoned 
"  their  months  by  the  moon,  and  their  years  by  the 
*'  revolution  of  the  sun;  and  they  ate  the  passover 
"  on  the  14th  day  of  the  month  Nisan,  which  was 
"  the  first  month  in  their  year,  reckoning  from  the 
"  first  appearance  of  the  new  moon,  which  at  that 
"  time  of  year  might  be  on  the  evening  of  the  day 


SI 

'  next  after  the  change,  if  the  sky  was  clear :  so 
'  that  their  14th  day  of  the  month  answered  to  our 
'  15th  day  of  tlie  moon,  on  which  she  is  full :  and 

*  the  full  moon  at  which  it  was  kept,  was  the  one 
'  which  happened  next  after  the  vernal  equinox.  For 
'  Josephus  expressly  says,  Antiq.  B.  iii.  C.  10.  the 
'  pasbovcr  was  kept  on  the  14th  day  of  the  month 

*  Nisan,  according  to  the  moon  when  the  sun  was  in 
'  Aries.  And  the  sun  always  enters  Aries  at  the 
'  instant  of  the  venial  equinox,  which,  in  our  Sa- 
'  viour's  time,  fell  on  the  22d  day  of  Miu-ch." 

If  the  Jews  knew  the  precise  time  when  the  sun 
entered  Aries,  they  must  have  known  a  solar  year  : 
and  if  they  did  not,  they  could  not  liave  ascertained 
the  full  moon,  when  the  passover  ought  to  be  eat. — 
The  paschal  year,  though  sometimes  shorter  and 
sometimes  longer,  yet,  according  to  the  method  of 
eating  the  passover,  the  year  always  embraced  seed- 
time and  harvest,  summer  and  winter,  and  no  more 
nor  less. 

We  find,  £x.  xxiii.  "  And  six  years  thou  shalt 
"  sow  thy  land,  and  shalt  gather  in  the  fruits  thereof, 
*'  but  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie 
"  still,  that  the  poor  of  thy  people  may  eat.  Three 
"  times  in  a  t/ear  thou  shalt  keep  a  feast  unto  me. — 
"  Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread ; 
"  the  feast  of  harvest ;  and  the  feast  of  ingathering 
"  in  the  end  of  the  year.  Three  times  in  a  year  all 
"  thy  males  shall  appear  before  the  Lord  God." 


In  all  these  instances,  the  term  year  embraces  a 
solar  year,  or  is  equivalent  thereto  upon  an  average. 
And  it  is  my  opinion,  after  investigating  the  matter 
with  considerable  attention,  that  where  we  find  the 
term  i/ear  used  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  always  equi- 
valent to  a  solar  year :  and  I  find  much  more  learned 
men  than  I  am  are  of  the  same  opinion.  We  have 
now  stated  the  primary  and  common  computation  of 
time  among  the  Jews. 

4.  Having  pointed  out  the  most  common  and 
usual  method  of  computing  time  among  the  Jews,  as 
established  by  the  law  of  Moses,  we  now  proceed  to 
exhibit  another  method  of  keeping  time  among  the 
Jews,  established  by  the  same  law,  not  very  religious- 
ly regarded  by  them,  probably  on  account  of  a  very 
avaricious  disposition ;  for  they  very  improperly  sup- 
posed, that  God's  holy  law  was  injurious  to  their  tem- 
poral interests.  The  account  of  this  wise  and  bene- 
volent law  of  God,  we  find  in  Lev.  xxv.  Nothing 
that  we  find  in  any  human  constitutions,  manifests 
more  benevolence  and  tenderness  for  human  nature 
in  poverty  and  distress. 

*'  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto 
"  them,  when  ye  come  into  the  land  which  I  shall 
''  give  you,  then  shall  the  land  keep  a  Sabbath  unto 
"  the  Lord.  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  the  field,  and 
"  six  years  thou  shalt  prune  thy  vineyard,  and  gather 
*'  in  the  fruit  thereof ;  but  in  tlie  seventh  year,  shall 
*'  be  a  sabbath  of  rest  unto  the  land,  a  sabbath  for 
"  the  Lord.     Thou  .shalt  ncitlicr  sow  thy  field,  nor 


23 

prune  thy  vineyard  ;  that  \\'hich  gTowetfi  of  ics  own 
accord  of  thy  harN'est,  thou  shalt  not  reap,  neither 
gather  the  grapes  of  thy  vine  undressed  :  for  it  is 
a  year  of  rest  unto  the  land.  And  the  sabbath  of 
the  land  shall  be  meat  for  )'.ju,  for  thee,  and  for  thy 
servant,  and  for  thy  maid,  and  for  thy  hired  ser- 
vant, and  for  thy  stranger  that  sojourneth  with  thee, 
&c.  And  thou  shalt  number  seven  sabbaths  of 
years  unto  thee,  i^even  times  seven  ijcarsy  and  the 
space  of  the  seven  sabbaths  of  years  shall  be  unto 
thecjbrty  and  nine  years.  Then  shalt  thou  cause 
the  trumpet  of  the  jubilee  to  sound  on  the  tenth 
day  of  the  seventh  month,  in  the  day  of  atone- 
ment, &:c.  And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year, 
and  proclaim  liberty  throughout  all  the  land  unto 
all  the  inhabitants  thereof,  &c.  A  jubilee  shall 
the  fiftieth  year  be  unto  you  ;  ye  shall  not   sow, 

neither  reap  that  which  groweth  of  itself  in  it. 

Aixl  if  ye  shall  say,  ^^'hat  shall  we  eat  the  seventh 
year '?  behold  we  shall  not  sow,  nor  gather  in  our  in- 
crease :  then  I  will  command  my  blessing  upon 
you  in  the  sixth  year,  and  it  shall  bring  forth  fruits 
for  three  years.  And  ye  shall  sow  the  eighth 
year,  and  eat  yet  of  old  fruit  till  the  ninth  year  : 
until  her  fruits  come  in,  ye  shall  eat  of  the  old 
store." 

Here  we  have  the  ground-work  for  a  new  and  dis- 
tinct kind  of  computation  and  reckoning  oi  time 
among  the  Jews.  But  if  the  Jews  were  unacquainted 
with  any  method  of  ascertaining  a  solar  yQ-c\\\  it-  would 


24 

follow,  that  God  gave  them  a  positive  law  which  they 
could  not  possibly  keep.  This,  however,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, none  will  admit.  Their  sabbatical  week  of 
seven  years^  if  the  year  had  been  too  short,  would 
have  retrogi'aded  through  all  the  seasons  ;  an  absur- 
dity too  gross  to  be  advocated.  The  prophetic  pe- 
riods are  given  to  us  precisely  in  this  way  of  reck- 
oning; :  and  the  first  of  the  kind  which  the  Jews  could 
accurately  notice,  was  Daniel's  70  weeks.  If  they  , 
had  been  uncertain  at  the  delivery  of  the  prophecy, 
vet  their  doubts  must  have  been  removed  in  a  short 
time,  for  70  natural  weeks  are  but  a  little  more  than  a 
year  and  a  half;  at  the  end  of  which,  nothing  occur- 
red to  the  Jews  corresponding  with  Daniel's  prophetic 
predictions,  they  would  then  have  naturally  conclud- 
ed, that  the  weeks  were  to  be  taken  as  sabbatical 
weeks.  Whether  they  made  any  such  inference  or 
not,  it  is  well  known  that  the  Jews  correctly  under- 
stood, that  the  70  weeks  were  70  sabbatical  weeks,  or 
490  years,  each  year  including  seed-time  and  harvest, 
summer  and  winter.  And  this  was  a  good  ground 
for  the  Jews  to  reckon  all  Daniel's  prophetic  periods 
in  the  same  way.  None  of  his  predictions  terminat- 
ed according  to  natural  days,  weeks,  and  years. 

If  it  be  said,  that  in  this  sabbatical  way  of  keeping 
time,  the  month  is  not  mentioned  as  consisting  of  30 
days ;  that  is,  30  years,  nor  the  year  as  consisting  of 
360  solar  years  ;  and  that,  therefore,  computing  them 
thus  is  an  unwarrantable  assumption,  we  observe, 
that  it  is  no  assumption  ;   for  the  spirit  of  prophecy 


has  so  explained  the  month  and  the  year ;  having 
used  indiscriminately,  for  the  same  periods  of  time, 
1260  days,  42  months,  and  a  time,  times,  and  a  half, 
or  three  years  and  a  half. 

The  sabbatical  day  and  week  being  the  ground- 
work of  the  computation  of  time,  the  day  embraces 
a  solar  year,  and  the  week  seven  of  them,  so  mani- 
festly, that  the  only  question  that  can  arise  is,  why  is 
the  month  made  to  consist  of  30  solar  years  ?  To 
this  we  answer  further,  that  the  Jews  were,  in  the 
time  of  Moses,  possessed  of  all  the  Egyptian  astro- 
nomical knowledge ;  and,  if  we  believe  what  Hero- 
dotus says,  the  Eg}'ptian  priests  told  him,  they  made 
their  month  consist  of  30  days.  Herodotus  was  in 
Egypt  about  400  years  before  the  Christian  asra, 
when  the  priests  told  him,  that  the  Egyptians,  first  of 
all  nations,  found  out  the  year  by  the  stars,  dividing 
it  into  12  parts,  and  making  their  months  consist  of  30 
days  :  and  at  the  end  of  the  year,  adding  five  days,  to 
bring  the  seasons  to  the  same  point  in  the  hesvens.  We 
now  know  that  this  addition  did  not  preserve  the  so- 
lar year  correctly.  We  shall  see  more  clearly  here- 
after, that  the  prophetic  month  is  precisely  thirty  so- 
lar years.  Upon  the  whole,  we  think,  that  it  is  mani- 
fest, that  Daniel's  prophetic  terms  were  clearly  un- 
derstood by  the  Jews  in  the  sense  we  have  explained 
them  :  and  they  cannot  be  enigmatical  to  a  Christian 
who  believes  in  St.  John's  Revelation.  One  idea  is 
of  some  importance  to  be  kept  in  mind,  which  is, 
that  when  the  prophetic  periods  were  first  delivered, 


26 

and  for  hundreds  of  years  afterwards,  it  was  suppos- 
ed, that  the  earth  was  the  centre  of  the  universe,  and 
that  the  sun  revolved  round  the  earth  from  east  to 
west,  so  as  to  make  a  complete  revolution  every  day. 
This  idea  will  be  found  essential  in  explaining  one  of 
the  prophetic  periods— where  we  find  the  term  ^ear 
used  for  360  years  :  and  it  is  the  only  place  in  the 
Bible  where  we  find  it  so  used.  It  is,  however,  there 
so  manifestly  connected  with  other  terms  that  re- 
quire and  have  always  received  an  extended  ex- 
planation, that  the  same  construction  has  always  been 
given,  in  this  case,  to  the  term  7/ear.  It  is  frequent- 
ly the  case,  that  the  meaning  of  a  term  can  only  be 
found  out  by  its  connexion  with  other  terms. 

5.  It  being  evident,  that  a  day  in  prophetic  chro- 
nology is  the  sign  for  a  solar  year,  and  that  whether 
they  be  classed  in  sevens,  thirties,  or  three  hundred 
and  sixties,  they  intend  precisely  as  many  years,  con- 
sisting of  summer  and  winter,  seed-time  and  harvest, 
as  the  different  denominations  express. 

We  now  proceed  to  say,  that  the  ambiguous  mean- 
ing of  prophecy  never  did  consist  in  the  enigmatical 
meaning  of  the  terms  made  use  of  respecting  the 
prophetic  periods,  but  in  the  terms  made  use  of  to 
describe  the  characters  of  such  empires  or  persons 
as  were  to  appear  during  the  time  of  the  prophetic 
periods ;  commencing  with  them,  existing  during 
their  continuance,  and  ending  with  them.  In  die 
most  famous  prophecy  of  Daniel's  seventy  weeks, 
there  was  no  enigma  or  concealed  meaning  in  the 
prophetic  period.      The   description   of  the  cha- 


27 

racter  of  the  person  that  was  to  appear  at  the  end 
of  the  prophetic  period,  was  not  so  clear  and  expli- 
cit, as  to  lead  every,  (perhaps  conscientious,)  man  to 
the  very  person  himself.  The  spirit  of  prophecy,  in 
giving  us  a  narrative  of  facts  before  they  happened, 
might  have  made  use  of  plain  and  unambiguous 
terms,  which  would  have  infallibly  led  all  to  fix  on 
the  very  object  that  was  precisely  in  the  view  of  the 
same  spirit.  This  was  not  done;  we  therefore 
infer,  with  certainty,  that  it  never  was  intended  to 
make  use  of  such  plain  language,  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  about  the  object  really  referred  to.  The  cer- 
tain meaning  of  the  phrases  made  use  of  in  the  his- 
toric narration  of  prophecy,  are  in  many  instances 
clearly  and  indubitably  known  to  the  spirit  of  pro- 
phecy only.  But  when  God  said  in  express  words, 
that  the  Jews  should  serve  the  king  of  Babylon  70 
years,  and  that  after  the  70  years  they  should  be  re- 
stored to  their  own  land  again,  we  need  not  seek 
for  any  other  than  the  literal  sense  of  the  term 
years ;  because  there  is  nothing  mystical  in  any  of 
the  words  with  which  it  is  connected — as  Babylon, 
Judah,  and  Captivity.  But  when  we  find,  that  the 
empire  of  Babylon  was  to  have  an  end,  and  that  after 
it  was  cut  down,  seve7i  times  were  to  pass  over  it,  we 
have  no  doubt  that  the  sense  here  is  mystical ;  not  as 
to  the  terms  seven  tiiiesy  which  unquestionably 
mean  2520  years ;  because  Daniel  invariably  uses 
the  term  time  for  360  years.  Again;  finding  that 
time«  and  law  were  to  be  given  into  the  hands  of  the 
little  horii,  imtil^  (not  /or^  as  some  learned  comm.eii- 


28 

tators  inadvertently  render  the  same,)  a  time,  times^ 
and  the  dividing  of  time,  (that  is,  half  a  time  J  the 
period  itself  having  no  express  beginning,  but  only 
a  mystical  ending,  is  as  enigmatical  as  the  little  horn 
itself;  that  is,  the  termination  respects  a  certain  time, 
times,  and  a  half,  whose  beginning  and  ending  is 
clearly  expressed  in  another  place.  Not,  therefore, 
knowing  the  beginning  of  the  period,  we  are  led  to 
believe  that  the  period  itself  is  short  of  1260  years. 
I|f,  however,  it  were  1260  natural  days,  or  three  years 
and  a  half,  we  cannot  conceive,  that  all  that  is  ascrib- 
ed to  the  little  horn,  could  be  accomplished  in  three 
solar  years  and  a  half.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  think, 
that  here  the  period  and  the  character  designed  are 
mystical,  and  that  the  appearance  of  a  character  an- 
swering to  the  description,  can  alone  unfold  the  mys- 
tical meaning  of  both.  The  commencement  of  the 
period  can  only  be  ascertained  by  the  appearance  of  a 
character  answering  to  the  various  characteristics 
given  of  it.  The  termination  of  the  Dynasty  of  the 
little  horn  will  be  at  the  end  of  a  certain  period  of 
1260  years ;  it  will  not  exist  1260  years. 

Again,  I  find  men  are  to  be  tormented  by  locusts 
for  five  months,  but  I  cannot  conceive,  that  they  can 
accomplish  all  that  is  assigned  to  them  in  so  short  a 
period  as  half  a  year.  The  period  is,  therefore,  pro- 
phetic and  precise ;  that  is,  150  years.  The  charac- 
ter, till  its  appearance,  was  m}'stical. 

Again,  I  fhid  that  certain  characters  had  assigned 
to  tiiem  a  period  of  a  year^  a  nionth,  a  cfey,  and  an 
/war.     From  the  descriptions  of  the  characters,  and 


20 

what  they  are  to  do,  it  is  not  possible  to  conceive  that 
they  could  accomplish  it  in  so  short  a  period  of  time 
as  a  natural  year,  8cc.  Here,  also,  the  period  is  pre- 
cise, and  tiie  mystery  lies  in  the  characters.  The  ap- 
pearance of  the  characters,  alone  can  enable  us  to  fix 
on  the  commencement  of  the  period. 

6.  It  was  not  the  design  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
to  give  us  so  plain  and  explicit  a  narrative  of  facts, 
before  tlieir  existence,  as  that  all  should  know  pre- 
cisely to  wliat  objects  the  narrative  had  a  sole  relation. 
We  will  adduce  two  more  instances,  where  the  term 
day  is  unquestionably  used  to  signify  a  solar  year.-  - 
Num.  xiv.  33.  "  Your  childi-en  shall  wander  in  the 
wilderness  40  years :  after  the  number  of  the  days  in 
which  ye  seai'chcd  the  land,  even  40  days,  each  day 
for  a  year,  shall  you  bear  your  iniquities,  even  40 
years."  Also,  Ezek.  iv.  4,  5,  6.  "  Lie  thou  on  thy 
left  side,  and  lay  the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Israel 
upon  it :  according  to  the  number  of  days  that  thou 
shalt  lie  upon  it,  thou  shalt  bear  their  iniquity ; 
for  I  have  laid  upon  thee  the  years  of  their  iniquity, 
according  to  the  number  of  days,  three  hundred  and 
ninety  days :  so  shalt  thou  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
house  of  Israel.  And  when  thou  hast  accomplished 
them,  lay  again  on  thy  right  side,  and  thou  shalt  beai' 
the  iniquity  of  the  house  of  Judah  forty  days  :  I  have 
appointed  thee,  (rrsttrboiN-rs^bc-i'  a  day  for  a  year,)  a  day 
for  a  year." 

7.  Not  one  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  \^hosc 
periods  were  expressed  by  days  or  weeks,  termi- 
nated according  to  the  common  acceptation  of  the 


30 

terms,  but  according  to  the  sabbatical  or  jubiiee 
meaning  of  them.     This  idea  is  borrowed  from  an 
eminent  Hebrician,  as  well  as  mathematician.      He 
says,  that  "  this  argument  is  of  all  others  the  most 
*'  important  in  this  matter,  and  such,  if  it  can  be 
''  well  proved,  determines  the  dispute."     He  has 
clearly  proved,  that  the  period  of  the  little  horn,  and 
of  the  2300  days,  have  no  relation  to  any  abomina- 
tion set  up  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  if  any  credit  is  to  be  given  to  the  Books 
of  the  Maccabees.     Taking  the  day,  week,  or  year, 
in  their  vulgar  sense,  he  has  fairly  proved,  that  none 
of  Daniel's  prophetic  periods  terminated  in  this  sense 
in  particular,   as  to  any   profanation  of  the  Jewish 
temple  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,     But  still  he  does 
not  suppose,  that  any  of  Daniel's  prophetic  periods 
have  terminated,  except  the  70  weeks.       He  con- 
cludes, very  justly,  that  as  many  have  applied  almost 
all  the  important  prophetic  periods    of  time  in  Da- 
niel, to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  they  limit  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  in  an  unreasonable  and  incredible  man- 
ner, by  applying  them  to  three  or  four  years  of  the 
reign  of  that  insignificant,  miserable  wretch,  Antio- 
chus Epiphanes,  Avho  is  not  particularly  noticed  in 
the  book   of   Daniel.      Such  miserable  contracted 
views  of  the  prophetic  periods,  limiting  th^ir  com- 
pletion in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  in  the  short  space 
of  three  or  four  natural  years,  and  that  sometime  pre- 
vious to  the  birth  of  our  Saviour,  is  in  contradiction  of 
his  express  words,  that  the  abomination  of  desolation, 
spoken  of  by  Daniel,  was  to  be  set  up  in  Jerusiilem, 
after  his  time. 


31 

Not  more  than  one  of  Daniel's  important  prophe- 
tic periods,  viz.  the  70  weeks,  has  as  yet  terminated. 
Five,  at  least,  and,  I  think,  six,  have  not  yet  termi- 
nated. 

As  temporal  and  tyrannical  powers,  under  differ- 
ent heads,  occupy  a  great  part  of  Daniel's  and  John's 
prophecies  ;  as  they  are  manifestly  the  measure  of 
the  period  of  time  that  is  to  be  before  jhe  com- 
mencement of  the  millennium,  we  will  introduce  the 
passages  of  Scripture  that  respect  these  powers,  in 
order  to  find  who,  and  how  many,  there  were  to  be. 

1.  We  begin  with  the  Babylonish  empire.  The 
prophecies  respecting  this  empire,  commence  in  the 
time  of  the  Jewish  captivity ;  and  in  the  year  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation  1260,  from  the  institution  of  the 
law  of  circumcision,  the  captivity  commenced.  This 
fact  is  demonstrable  from  the  chronology  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  will  be  found  to  be  ol  great  conse- 
quence, as  it  will  enable  us  to  preserve  a  regular  series 
of  prophetic  chronology. 

A  sketch  of  all  the  temporal  monarchies  that  were 
to  be  till  Christ's  second  advent,  we  find  in  Daniel 
U.  31. 

*'  Thou,  O  King,  sawest,  and  behold  a  great 
"  image.  This  great  image,  whose  brightness 
"  was  excellent,  stood  before  thee,  and  the  form 
-'  thereof  Wiis  tenible.  This  image's  head  v/as  of 
"  fine  gold,  his  breast  and  his  arms  of  silver,  his  belly 
*'  and  his  thighs  of  brass,  his  legs  of  iron,  his  feet 
"  part  of  iron  and  part  of  clay.     Thou  sawest,  till 


32 

.  *'  that  a  stone  was  cut  out  without  hands,  which 
''  smote  the  image  upon  his  feet,  that  were  of  iron 
"  and  clay,  and  break  them  in  pieces.  Then  was 
'■'  the  iron,  the  clay,  the  brass,  the  silver,  and  the  gold 
"  broken  to  pieces  together,  and  became  like  the 
"  chaff  of  the  summer  threshing  floors  ;  and  the  wind 
"  carried  them  away,  that  no  place  was  found  for 
"  them.  And  the  stone  that  smote  the  image  be- 
''  came  a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole  earth. 
"  This  is  the  dream,  and  we  will  tell  the  interpretation 
^'  thereof  before  the  king.  Thou,  O  king,  art  a  king 
"  of  kings:  for  the  God  of  Heaven  hath  given  thee 
"  a  kingdom,  power,  and  strength,  and  glory ;  and 
*'  wheresoever  the  children  of  men  dwell,  the  beasts 
''*  of  the  field,  and  the  fowls  of  heaven,  hath  he  given 
'''  into  thine  hand,  and  hath  made  thee  ruler  over 
"  them  all.  Thou  art  this  head  of  gold.  And  after 
"  thee  shall  arise  another  kingdom,  inferior  to  thee, 
'*  and  another  third  kingdom  of  brass,  which  shall 
'^  bear  rule  over  all  the  earth.  And  the  fourth  king- 
^*  dom  shall  be  strong  as  iron  :  forasmuch  as  iron 
"  breaketh  in  pieces  and  subdueth  all  things  ;  and  as 
"  iron  breaketh  all  these,  so  shall  it  break  in  peices 
''  and  bruise.  And  whereas,  thou  sawest  the  feet 
"  and  toes,  part  of  potter's  clay  and  part  of  iron,  the 
"  kingdom  shall  be  divided  ;  but  there  shall  be  in  it 
"  of  the  strength  of  iron,  forasmuch  as  thou  sawest 
"  the  iron  mixed  with  miry  clay.  And  as  the  toes  of 
"  the  feet  were  part  of  iron  and  part  of  clay,  so  shall 
'*  tlie  kingdom  be  partly  strong,  and  partly  broken. 


33 

**  And  whereas,  thou  sawest  iron  mixed  with  mii'v 
"  clay :  they  sliall  mingle  themselves  with  the  seed 
"  of  men  ;  but  they  shall  not  cleave  one  to  another, 
*'  even  as  iron  is  not  mixed  with  ckiy.  And  in  the 
"  days  of  these  kings,  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set 
"  up  a  kingdom,  which  shall  never  be  destroyed : 
'*  and  the  kingdom  shall  not  be  left  to  other  people, 
''  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these 
*'  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  for  ever." 

In  the  3d  chapter  we  have  a  history  of  the  image 
of  gold  set  up  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  be  worshipped, 
which  may  be  designed  to  intimate,  that  all  the  licads. 
of  the  first  image  should  be  idolatrous.  All  the  great 
empires,  since  that  of  Babylon,  have  been  idolatrous, 
except  the  Mahometan,  which,  it  is  manifest,  if  it 
does  not  constitute  one  of  the  heads  of  the  first 
image,  yet  its  members  do  not  worship  the  true  God. 

Chapter  iv.  verse  4.  *'  I,  Nebuchadnezzar,  was 
•■'  at  rest  in  mine  house,  and  flourishing  in  my  pa- 
**  lace.  I  saw  a  dream  which  made  me  afraid,  and 
"  the  thoughts  upon  my  bed  and  the  visions  of  m} 
"  head  troubled  me.  I  saw,  and  behold,  a  tree  in  the 
*'  midst  of  the  earth,  and  the  heighth  thereof  was 
"  great.  The  tree  grew,  and  was  strong,  and  the 
*'  heighth  thereof  reached  unto  heaven,  and  the  sight 
*'  thereof  to  the  end  of  the  earth,  &c.  I  saw  in  the 
*'  visions  of  my  head  upon  my  bed,  and,  behold,  a 
"  watcher  and  a  holy  one  came  down  from  heaven, 
'■'■  He  cried  aloud,  and  said  thus,  hew  down  the  tree, 
"  and  cut  oflT  his  branches,  shakr  ofT  hi«;  lenves,  and 

F 


34 

"  scatter  his  fruit :  let  the  beasts  get  away  from  un- 
"  der  it,  and  the  fowls  from  his  branches.  Never- 
"  theless,  leave  the  stump  of  his  roots  in  the  earth, 
"  even  with  a  band  of  iron  and  brass,  in  the  tender 
*'  grass  of  the  field  ;  and  let  it  be  wet  with  the  dew  of 
"  heaven,  and  let  his  portion  be  with  the  beasts  in 
"  the  grass  of  the  earth.  Let  his  heart  be  changed 
"  from  man's,  and  let  a  beast's  heart  be  given  unto 
"  him  ;  and  let  seven  times  pass  over  him." 

After  long  and  mature  reflection  upon  the  words 
describing  this  vision,  I  cannot  but  think,  that  we 
have  represented  to  us  the  end  of  the  Babylonish 
empire,  and  something  more  :  for  I  do  not  see,  that 
the  various  descriptions  made  use  of,  can  be  applied 
to  Nebuchadnezzar  personally,  even  upon  the  suppo- 
sition of  his  being  deprived  entirely  of  his  reason  and 
becoming  a  perfect  brute ;  in  consequence  of  which, 
he  was  driven  away  from  his  own  subjects,  and  that 
for  the  space  of  seveyi  times,  or  seven  years,  as  the 
seven  times  have  been  generally  explained.  Daniel 
has  made  use  of  the  term  time  and  times  frequently, 
always  signifying  thereby,  (that  is,  the  term  time, J 
360  years,  and  never  a  common  year.  It  may,  there- 
fore, be  rationally  concluded,  that  the  seven  times 
here,  do  not  mean  seven  days  or  seven  common 
years ;  but  in  conformity  to  the  sense  we  must  in- 
variably affix  to  the  term  time^  elsewhere  seven  titnes, 
h«rc,  must  mean,  2520  years.  We  have  good  rea- 
son to  doubt,  whether  Nebuchadnezzai-  became  so 
pious  a  worshipper  of  God,  as  he  is  represented  to  be 


35 

after  he  returned  to  himself.  We  have  no  ti'aces  in 
profane  history  of  tliis  extraordinary  fact,  nor  of  that, 
which  would  ha\e  been  a  more  notorious  fact,  of  his 
proclaiming  and  establishing  the  worship  of  the  true 
God  in  his  empire.  If  any  tiling  did  happen  to  that 
proud  monarch,  it  might  have  been  typical  of  some 
greater  and  more  distinguished  event :  and  if  so,  we 
have  the  period  of  time  given  to  us  before  it  should 
happen. 

First.  We  now  know,  that  the  first  terrible  image 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  saw,  is  partly  in  existence  at 
this  time,  after  a  lapse  of  time  of  2370  years,  and  we 
confidently  conclude,  that  it  extended  further  down 
150  years;  which  will  make  the  full  period  of  the 
vision,  2520  years.  Thus  far  into  futurity  was  Ne- 
buchadnezzar's view  carried.  *'  Thou  art  this  head  of 
gold.''^  That  this  is  not  said  personally  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, but  of  the  Babylonish  empire,  the  next  words 
do  clearly  show—"  And  after  thee  shall  arise  another 
kingdom.''''  Why  should  the  prophet  say  "  anothei^ 
kingdom,''^  if  the  previous  words  did  not  intend  a 
kingdom?  "  After  thee^''^  cannot  relate  to  the 
death  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  to  the  end  of  the  Ba- 
bylonish empire,  when,  and  not  before,  the  Medo- 
persian  empire  commenced. 

Second.  Nebuchadnezzar  sets  up  an  image  to  be 
worshipped,  and  the  penalty  for  not  worshipping  is, 
to  be  cast  into  a  fier}-  furnace  seven  times  heated. — - 
All  Nebuchadnezzar's  successors  have  been  more  or 
kss  idolatrous.     The  refined  cruelty  of  the  inquisi- 


,jt^ 


36 

tion  exceeds  the  barbarity  of  the  heathen  monarch. 
The  visions  that  this  heathen  had  given  to  him  arc 
mysterious.  He  was  astonished  at  them  himself: 
the  monarch  *'  rose  up  in  haste,  and  spake,  and  said 
unto  his  counsellors,  did  not  we  cast  three  men 
bound  into  the  midst  of  the  fire  ?  They  answered 
and  said  unto  the  king,  true,  O  king.  He  answered 
and  said,  Lo,  I  see  four  men  loose,  walking  in  the 
midst  of  the  fire,  and  they  have  no  hurt ;  and  the  form 
of  the  fourth  is  like  the  Son  of  God."  What  idea 
he  had  of  the  Son  of  God,  we  know  not.  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  but  that  the  fourth  person  appeared 
much  more  splendid  and  glorious  than  the  other  three. 
Wc  suggest  the  idea,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  had  re- 
presented to  him  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  when 
he  will  come  in  flaming  fire  to  take  vengeance  on  his 
enemies  ;  which  gives  to  this  vision  an  equal  extent 
with  the  other  two.  It  is  not,  however,  so  clear  and 
evident  as  the  other  two  are. 

Third.  Nebuchadnezzar's  third  vision  exhibits  to 
him  the  end  of  his  own  empire,  and  fixes  the  period 
ot  time  that  should  elapse  before  the  God  of  heaven 
should  set  up  a  kmgdom  that  should  never  be  de  • 
stroyed.  ^V e  ha\e  here  a  singular  circumstance, 
which  is,  that  the  proud  monarch  icii  on  his  face  and 
worshipped  Daniel,  and  commanded  that  they  should 
offer  an  oblation  and  sweet  odours  unto  him,  and  it 
docs  not  appear  tliat  Daniel  rebuked  him  for  so  doing. 
This  evidences,  that  the  moniuch's  heart  was  idola- 
irous.    N  otwithstanding  his  professions  of  piety  to- 


37 

wards  God,  he  never  did  experimentally  kno^v•  the 
true  God,  if  he  worshipped  his  creatures.  He  might 
as  well  worship  his  image  of  gold  as  Daniel. 

U[)on  the  whole,  we  think  we  have  good  i  eason  to 
conclude,  that  from  the  end  of  the  Babylonish  em- 
pire, to  the  time  when  a  kingdom  shall  be  set  up 
that  shall  never  be  destroyed,  were  to  be  2520  com- 
mon }'ears.  Now,  as  that  empire  came  to  an  end 
f)60  years  before  the  Christian  ?era ;  that  is,  2370 
years  ago,  counting  back  from  the  year  1810,  there 
wants  but  150  years  to  ari\'c  at  the  time  when  an 
everlasting  kingdom  shall  begin. 

Seven  times,  are  prophetically  2520  years :  and 
here  we  have  one  of  the  six  periods  in  Daniel  that 
has  not  terminated. 

The  second  head  of  the  great  image  is  the  Me- 
dopersian  empire,  mentioned  and  described  in  seve- 
ral detached  places  in  Daniel.  First,  by  these  words, 
"  -A.nd  after  theq  shall  arise  another  kingdom  inferior 
to  thee."     Also, 

Dan.  viii.  In  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Bel- 
shazzar,  "  a  vision  appeax-ed  unto  me,  Daniel,  after 
^'  that  which  appeared  unto  me  at  the  first,  he.  I 
''  lifted  up  my  eyes,  and  saw,  and  behold  there  stood 
''  before  the  river,  a  ram  which  had  two  horns.  And 
''  the  two  horns  were  high,  but  one  was  higiier  than 
''  the  other ;  and  the  higher  came  up  the  last.  I  saw 
''  the  ram  pushing  westward,  and  northward,  and 
"  southward,  so  that  no  beast  might  stand  before 
"  him.  neither  was  there  anv  that  could   deliver  out 


38 

*'  of  his  hand,  but  he  did  according  to  his  will,  and 
''  became  great."  Verse  20.  "  The  ram  which  thou 
"  sawest,  having  two  horns,  signifies  the  kings  of 
*'  Media  and  Persia.'' 

Chap.  xi.  I.  "  Also  I,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius, 
"  the  Mede,  even  I  stood  to  confirm  and  strengthen 
"  him  ;  and  now  will  I  show  thee  the  truth.  Behold, 
"  there  shall  stand  up  yet  three  kings  in  Persia  ;  and 
"'  the  fourth  shall  be  far  richer  than  they  all :  and 
"  by  his  strength,  through  his  riches,  he  shall  stir 
"  up  all  against  the  realm  of  Grecia." 

The  following  passages  respecting  the  Persian  em- 
pire, seem  to  give  the  duration  of  the  same  :  and  if 
so,  the  term  day  is  used  in  a  very  extensive  sense — 
and  we  know  the  Scriptures  so  use  it.  "  As  thy 
day  is,  so  shall  thy  strength  be."  I  think  the  term 
day  signifies  ten  years,  c.  x.  13.  My  reason  for  the 
opinion  is,  Darius,  the  Mede,  and  uncle  of  Cyrus, 
lived  about  ten  years  after  the  conquest  of  Babylon ; 
when  the  Medopersian  empire  commenced.  Accord- 
ing to  Daniel,  Darius  the  Mede  was  the  first  king  of 
the  Medopersian  empire  ;  and  Cyrus  was  his  suc- 
cessor. The  Medopersian  empire  existed  only  ten 
years,  and  the  Persian  empire  210  years,  making  tlie 
period  of  those  empires  220  years  ;  which,  we  are 
pursuaded  even  from  profane  history,  as  well  as  the 
prophetic  periods,  is  correct.  The  following  passa- 
ges relate  only  to  the  kingdom  of  Persia,  for  the  re- 
velation begins,  "  In  the  third  }ear  of  Cyrus,  king 
of  Persia,  a  thing  was  revealed  unto  Daniel."  x.  1. 


39 

Verse  13.  "  But  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Per- 
"  sia  withstood  mc  one  and  twenty  days.  But,  lo, 
"  Michael,  one  of  the  chief  princes,  came  to  help 
"  me,  and  I  remained  there  with  the  king  of  Persia.'' 
V.  20.  "  Then  said  he,  knowest  thou  where- 
"  fore  I  come  unto  thee  ?  and  now  will  I  return  to 
"  fight  with  the  prince  of  Persia :  and  when  I  am 
"  gone  forth,  the  prince  of  Grecia  shall  come." 

The  passages  or  texts  unquestionably  convey  this 
idea,  that  the  kings  of  Persia  were  to  be  protected 
for  a  certain  period  of  time,  and  then  the  prince  of 
Grecia  was  to  overcome  them.  And  if  the  2 1  days  in- 
tend 210  years,  the  prophecy  corresponds  with  the 
fact.  If  this  be  a  true  construction  of  the  prophecy, 
two  of  Daniel's  prophetic  periods  have  long  since 
terminated  ;  but  not  two  in  the  sabbatical  or  jubilee 
mode  of  computation.  Two  hundred  and  ten  years 
are  30  prophetic  weeks.  The  prophecy,  perhaps, 
would  have  been  too  plain  to  the  Jews  if  it  had  been 
delivered  in  weeks. 

Third.  The  Macedonian  Empire.  No  one  ques- 
tions the  fact,  that  tliis  empire  immediately  succeed- 
ed the  Persian  empire.  It  is  described  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar in  these  words  : — "  And  another  third  kino-- 
dom  of  brass,"  &c.  This  confirms  fully  the  con- 
struction we  have  given  of  the  words,  "  thou  art  the 
head  of  gold."  They  intend  the  kingdom  of  Baby- 
lon, otherwise  the  Macedonian  would  not  be  the 
third  kingdom. 

Chap,  viii.  5.      '•'■  And  as  I  was  considering-,  be- 


40 

"  hold,  a  he-goat  came  from  the  West  on  the  face  of 
"  the  whole  earth,  and  touched  not  the  ground.  And 
"  the  goat  had  a  notable  horn  between  his  eyes.  And 
"  he  came  to  the  ram  that  had  two  horns,  which  I 
'*  had  seen  standing  before  the  river,  and  ran  unto 
^'  him  in  the  fury  of  liis  power.  And  I  saw  him 
"  come  close  unto  the  ram,  and  he  was  moved  with 
"  choler  against  him,  and  smote  the  ram,  and  broke 
"  his  two  horns  :  and  there  was  no  power  in  the  ram 
"  to  stand  before  him,  but  he  cast  him  down  to  the 
**  ground  and  stamped  upon  him,  and  there  was  none 
"  that  could  deliver  the  ram  out  of  his  hands.  There- 
"  fore  the  he-goat  v.axed  very  great,  and  when  he 
"  was  strong,  the  great  horn  was  broken  ;  and  for  it 
"  came  up  four  notable  ones  toward  the  four  winds 
"  of  heaven." 

No  comments  are  necessary  here,  except  as  to  the 
four  notable  horns,  which  we  shall  take  notice  of 
hereafter.  The  13  th  verse  of  this  chapter  has  per- 
plexed many  commentators;  which  is,  "  Then  I- 
"  heard  one  saint  speaking,  and  another  saint  said 
"  unto  that  certain  saint  which  spake,  how  long  shall 
*'  be  the  vision  concerning  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  the 
"  transgression  of  desolation,  to  give  both  the  sanc- 
"  tuary  and  the  host  to  be  trodden  under  foot  ?  And 
"  he  said  unto  me,  unto  2300  days,  then  shall  the 
"  sanctuary  be  cleansed." 

Bishop  Lowth   says,   that  the  translation  should 
have  been,  "  For  how  long  a  time  shall  the  vision 


41 

"  last,  the   daily   sacrifice  be  taken  away,  and  the 
**  transgression  of  desolation  continue  ?'* 

There  can  be  no  question,  but  this  vision  extend- 
ed to  the  end  of  the  Jewish  desolation.  But  what 
shall  we  refer  the  commencement  of  the  vision  to  ? 
We  answer,  to  the  period  of  time  when  tlie  Persiai\ 
empire  ended,  at  which  time  the  Macedonian  em- 
pire commenced.  For  it  is  the  event  treated  of  in 
the  prophecy. 

The  prophet  explains  the  meaning  of  the  ram  and 
he-goat,  ver.  20,  21.  "  The  ram  which  thou  sawcst, 
"  having  two  horns,  are  the  kings  of  Media  and  Per- 
*'  sia  ;  and  the  rough  he-goat  is  the  king  of  Grecia. 
"  Now  that  being  broken,  whereas  four  stood  up  for 
*'  it,  four  kingdoms  shall  stand  up  out  of  the  nation, 
"  but  not  in  his  power."  Alexander's  empire  was 
divided  into  four  kingdoms,  as  follows  : 

Ptolemy  had  Egypt,  Lybia,  Arabia,  and  Palass- 
tine. 

Cassander  had  Macedonia  and  Greece,  embracing; 
the  Romans.-  > 

Lysimachus  had  Bythynia  and  Thrace. 

Seleucus  had  Asia,  as  far  as  the  river  Indus. 

It  is  evident,  that  the  vision  commences  with 
Alexander,  long  before  the  daily  sacrifice  was  taken 
away ;  and  by  the  immediate  subsequent  descrip-' 
tions,  this  is  to  be  the  work  of  the  Romans,  when  the 
Jews  shall  have  filled  up  the  measure  of  their  trans- 
gressions. The  cleansing  of  the  sanctuary,  which 
will  not  be  till  a  kingdom  shall  be  set  up  that  shnH 


4^ 

never  be  destroyed,  will  take  place  2300  days,  or 
years,  after  the  commencement  of  Alexander's  em- 
pire. I  will  not  notice  the  trifling,  jejune,  and  in- 
congruous expositions  of  some  learned  men,  who 
apply  this  vision  entirely  to  three  or  four  years  when 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  set  up  the  worship  of  idols  in 
Jerusalem.  The  taking  away  the  daily  sacrifice^ 
whose  duration  is  commensurate  with  the  transgres- 
sion of  desolation,  is  only  a  part  of  the  vision  that 
falls  in  at  its  proper  time.  Now  as  the  seven  times 
that  are  to  be  after  the  end  of  the  Babylonish  empire, 
are  unquestionably,  in  the  prophetic  sense,  equal  to 
2520  years,  which  terminate  A.  D.  1960,  so  the 
2300  days,  or  years,  must  terminate  at  the  same 
time :  for  deduct  the  years  that  Alexander's  empire 
commenced  before  Christ,  that  is,  340,  from  2300^ 
and  the  remainder  is  1960. 

The  fourth  empire  is  that  of  the  Romans.  Chap. 
ii.  40.  *'  And  the  fourth  kingdom,  shall  be  strong 
*'  as  iron :  forasmuch  as  iron  breaketh  in  pieces  and 
*'  subdueth  all  things  :  and  as  iron  breaketh  all  these, 
**  shall  it  break  in  pieces  and  bruise.  And  whereas 
"  thou  sawest  the  feet  and  toes  part  of  potter's  clay 
•*  and  part  of  iron,  the  kingdom  shall  be  divided  :  but 
**  there  shall  be  in  it  of  the  strength  of  the  iron,  foras- 
*•  much  as  thou  sawest  the  iron  mixed  with  the  mirj- 
"  clay.     And  as  the  toes  of  the  feet  were  part  of 

*  iron  and  part  of  clay,  so  the  kingdom  shall  be 
*•  partly  strong  and  partly  broken.     And  whereas 

•  thou  sawest  iron  mixed  with  miry  clay,  they  shall 
*'  mingle  themselves  with  tlie  seed  of  men,  but  they 


43 

••  shall  not  cleave  one  to  another,  even  as  iron  is  not 
"  mixed  with  clay." 

Chap.  viii.  9.  "  And  out  of  one  of  them  came 
**  forth  a  little  horn  which  waxed  exceeding  great, 
"  toward  the  Soutli,  and  toward  the  East,  and  to- 
"  ward  the  pleasant  land.  And  waxed  great,  even 
"  to  the  host  of  heaven.  And  it  cast  down  some  of 
"  the  host  and  of  the  stars  to  the  ground,  and  stamp- 
**  ed  upon  them  ;  yea,  he  magnified  himself  even  to 
"  the  prince  of  the  host,  and  by  him  the  daily  sacri- 
"  fice  was  taken  away,  and  the  place  of  his  sanctua- 
"  ry  was  cast  do^vn.  And  an  host  was  given  him 
"  against  the  daily  sacrifice,  by  reason  of  transgres- 
*'  sion.  And  he  cast  down  the  truth  to  the  ground, 
**  and  prospered.'*  Here  immediately  follows  the 
prophecy  of  the  2-300  days. 

Verse  23.  "  And  in  the  latter  time  of  their  king- 
"  dom,  (that  is,  of  the  four  into  which  Alexander's 
*'  empire  was  divided,)  when  the  trans^essors  are 
"  come  to  the  full,  a  king  of  fierce  countenance,  and 
"  understanding  dark  sentences,  shall  stand  up.  And 
*'  his  power  shall  be  mighty,  but  not  by  his  own 
"  power :  and  he  shall  destroy  wonderfully,  and 
"  shall  prosper,  and  practice,  and  destroy  the  mighty 
"  and  the  holy  people.  And  through  his  policy, 
**  also,  he  shall  cause  craft  to  prosper  in  his  hand : 
"  and  he  shall  magnify  himself  in  his  heart,  and  by 
''  peace  shall  destroy  many.  He  shall  also  stand  up 
"  against  the  prince  of  princes ;  but  he  shall  be 
•*  broken  without  hands.     Shut  thou  up  the  vision,  it 


*'  shall  be  for^days,  (or  years.)  And  I,  Daniel, 
''^  fainted,  and  was  sick  certain  days." 

The  first  20  verses  of  the  11th  chapter  exhibit  to 
our  view,  the  rise  of  Alexander,  the  four  kingdoms 
into  which  his  empire  was  divided,  the  Roman  Com- 
monwealth, and  imperial  Rome — the  two  last  being 
two  Dynasties  in  one  head.  C.  xi.  3  *'  Also  I,  in  the 
''''  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  even  I,  stood  to  con- 
'*  firm  and  strengthen  him.  And  now  will  I  show  thee 
"  the  truth.  Behold,there  shall  stand  up  yet  three  kings 
**  in  Persia ;  and  the  fourth  shall  be  far  richer  than 
"  they  all :  and  by  his  strength,  through  his  riches  he 
"  shall  stir  up  all  against  the  realm  of  Grecia.  And 
"  a  mighty  king  shall  stand  up,  that  shall  rule  with 
"  great  dominion,  and  do  according  to  his  will.  And 
"  when  he  shall  stand  up,  his  kingdom  shall  be  bro- 
"  ken  aiid  divided  towards  the  four  winds  of  heaven : 
*'  and  not  to  his  posterity,  nor  according  to  his  do- 
**  minion  which  he  ruled  :  for  his  kingdom  shall  be 
"  plucked  up,  even  for  others  besides  those." 

From  the  5th  verse  to  the  19th  inclusive,  we  have 
an  account  of  the  four  kingdoms  ;  but  more  particu- 
larly of  the  Seleucidse,  LagidcC,  and  the  Roman  Com- 
monwealth. 

"  And  the  king  of  the  South  shall  be  strong,  and 
''one  of  his  princes;  and  he  shall  be  strong  above 
"  him,  and  have  dominion  ;  his  dominion  shall  be  a 
"  great  dominion.  And  in  the  end  of  years  they  shall 
"join  themselves  together ;  for  the  king's  daughter 
"  of  the  South  shall  come  to  the  king  of  the  North 
"  to  make  an  agreement :  but  she  shall  not  retain  the 


45 

•'  power  of  the  arm  ;  neither  shall  he  stand,  nor  his 
*'  arm  :  but  she  shall  be  given  up,  and  they  that 
"  brought  her,  and  he  that  begat  her,  and  he  that 
**  strengthened  her  in  these  times.  But  out  of  a 
"  branch  of  her  roots  shall  one  stand  up  in  his  estate, 
"  which  shall  come  with  an  army,  and  shall  enter 
**  into  the  fortress  of  the  king  of  the  North,  and  shall 
"  deal  against  them,  and  shall  prevail ;  and  shall  also 
"  carry  captives  into  Egypt  their  gods,  with  their 
"  princes,  and  with  their  precious  vessels  of  silver 
"  and  of  gold ;  and  he  shall  continue  more  years  than- 
"  the  king  of  the  North.  The  king  of  the  South 
*'  shall  come  into  his  kingdom,  and  shall  return  into 
"  his  own  land.  But  his  sons  shall  be  stirred  up, 
"  and  shall  assemble  a  multitude  of  great  forces : 
"  and  one  shall  certainly  come,  and  overflow,  and 
"  pass  through  ;  then  shall  he  return,  and  be  stirred 
"  up,  even  to  his  fortress.  And  the  king  of  the 
*'  South  shall  be  moved  with  choler,  and  shall  come 
"  forth  and  fight  with  him,  even  with  the  king  of  the 
"  North  :  and  he  shall  set  forth  a  great  multitude ; 
"  but  the  multitude  shall  be  given  into  his  hand. — 
"  And  when  he  hath  taken  away  the  multitude,  his 
"  heart  shall  be  lifted  up;  and  he  shall  cast  down 
"  many  ten  thousands :  but  he  shall  not  be  strength- 
"  ened  by  it.  For  the  king  of  the  North  shall  re- 
"  turn,  and  shall  set  forth  a  multitude  greater  than 
"  the  former,  and  shall  certainly  come  after  certain 
"  years  with  a  great  army,  and  with  much  riches. 
*'  And  in  those  times  there  shall  many  stand  up 
"  against  the  king  of  the  South  :  also  the  robbers  of 


4,f    . 

"  thy  people  shall  exalt  themselves  to  establish  the 
"  vision  ;  (the  Romans,)  but  they  shall  fall.  So  the 
"  king  of  the  North  shall  come,  and  cast  up  a  mount, 
*'  and  take  the  most  fenced  cities  ;  and  the  arms  of 
"  the  South  shall  not  withstand,  neither  his  chosen 
"  people,  neither  shall  there  be  any  strength  to  with- 
"  stand.  But  he  that  cometh  against  him  shall  do 
"  according  to  his  own  will,  and  none  shall  stand  be- 
*'  fore  him ;  and  he  shall  stand  in  the  glorious  land, 
"  which  by  his  hand  shall  be  consumed.  He  shall 
"  also  set  his  face  to  enter  with  the  strength  of  his 
"  whole  kingdom,  and  upright  ones  with  him ;  thus 
**  shall  he  do  :  and  he  shall  give  him  the  daughter  of 
"  women,  corrupting  her ;  but  she  shall  not  stancj 
**  on  his  side,  neither  be  for  him.  After  this  shall  he 
"  turn  his  face  unto  the  isles,  and  shall  take  many  : 
"  but  a  prince  for  his  own  behalf  shall  cause  the  re- 
'*  proach  offered  by  him  to  cease ;  without  his  own 
"  reproach  he  shall  cause  it  to  turn  upon  him.  Then 
"  he  shall  turn  his  face  toward  the  fort  of  his  own 
''  land  :  but  he  shall  stumble,  and  fall,  and  not  be 
''  found.  Then  shall  stand  up  in  his  estate  a  raiser 
"  of  taxes  in  the  glory  of  the  kingdom  :  but  within 
"  a  few  days  he  shall  be  destroyed,  neither  in  anger 
"  nor  in  battle." 

Thus  we  find  that  Daniel  exhibits  to  our  view  the 
Romans  in  three  different  places,  exclusive  of  what 
is  said  of  them  in  the  7th  chapter,  which  will  be  no- 
ticed particularly  hereafter. 

They  are  exhibited  to  Nebuchadnezzar  as  part  of 
the  great  image  which  Daniel  says  was"  terrible" 


47 

to  the  king,  however  precious  and  current  tlie  differ- 
ent metals  were,  some  of  them.  He  says  himself, 
tliat  his  spirit  was  troubled,  and  his  sleep  brake  from 
him  on  account  of  his  dreams.  The  Roman  em- 
pire here  is  unquestionably  called  the  fourth  king- 
dom. 

They  are  exhibited  to  us,  chap.  viii.  9.  '*  And 
out  of  one  of  them  came  forth  a  little  horn,  which 
waxed  exceeding  great  toward  the  South,  the  East. 
and  the  pleasant  land."  '*  Orie  of  them^'*''  means  one 
of  the  divisions  into  which  Alexander's  empire  was 
divided,  so  evidently,  that  there  can  be  no  question 
about  it.  The  little  horn  must  have  originated 
northwardly  of  Judea,  for  it  progresses  southwardly, 
and  eastwardly,  and  toward  the  pleasant  land.  Ma- 
homet originated  southwardly,  and  progressed  north- 
wardly toward  the  pleasant  land.  He  had  never  an}" 
connexion  with  any  one  of  the  princes  that  succeed- 
ed to  the  divisions  of  Alexander's  empire.  It  is  a 
certain  fact,  that  the  Romans  originated  in  Cassan- 
der's  division  of  the  empire,  and  that  they  did  pro- 
gress as  stated. 

Julius  Caesar,  who  put  an  end  to  the  Roman  Com- 
monwealth, was  a  bold  successful  warrior,  and  might 
be  said  to  be  a  man  of  fierce  countenance.  His  speech, 
when  CataUne  was  accused  before  the  Senate,  is  a 
master-piece  of  cunning  and  duplicity.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  but  the  term  transgressors  means  Jew- 
ish transgressors.  Julius  Cassar  established  himself 
firmly  after  the  battle  of  Actium,  where  Pompey  and 
his  army  were  entirely  overthro^vn,  bet'^A'cen  40  and 


48 

50  years  before  tlie  Christian  aera.  This  king  was 
great,  not  by  his  own  power — it  was  the  Roman 
Commonwealth  that  had  raised  the  Romans  to  such 
a  pitch  of  glory.  Julius' Caesar,  however,  is  not  alone 
intended.  Octavius  Cassar  seems  to  be  intended  by 
these  words,  "  And  by  peace  shall  destroy  many.'' 
"  He  shall  be  broken  without  hands,"  means  tliat 
the  great  Roman  empire  should  come  to  an  end 
peaceably,  as  in  fact  it  did. 

The  third  exhibition  of  the  Romans  is  in  the  lltli 
chapter.  The  first  four  verses  of  this  chapter  exhi- 
bit the  rise  of  Alexander,  about  M'^hom  there  is  no 
difficulty.  The  period  of  time  embraced  from  the 
5th  to  the  20th  verse  inclusive,  is  that  from  the  divi- 
sion of  Alexander's  empire  into  four  kingdoms,  to 
Julius  Ccesar,  when  Rome  became  imperial — a  pe- 
riod of  about  260  years.  This  was  a  period  of  great 
confusion,  till  the  Romans  conquered  the  Syrian  and 
Egyptian  kings ;  that  is,  the  kings  of  the  North  and 
South.  The  Syrian  kingdom  was  conquered  by  the 
Romans  long  before  the  Egyptian  kingdom  was,which 
exactly  corresponds  with  the  words  of  the  prophet — 
"  And  he  shall  continue  more  years  than  the  king,' 
(kingdom,)  of  the  North."  ProfcUie  history^  gives  us 
an  account  of  the  wars,  the  truces,  treaties  of  peace 
and  of  marriage,  and  the  murders  in  consequence 
thereof,  between  the  Syrian  and  the  Egyptian  kings, 
before  they  were  conquered  by  the  Romans,  corres- 
ponding in  several  of  the  prophet's  characteristics. 
A  plainer  description  than  that  which  we  find  here, 
is  scarcely  to  be  found  in  prophecy   respecting  any 


4!> 

future  event.  The  character  of  Pompey  is  extreme- 
ly well  drawn. — "  After  tliis,  shall  he  turn  his  face 
*'  to  the  isles  and  take  many  ;  but  a  prince  for  his 
*'  own  behalf  shall  cause  the  reproach  offered  b}- 
"  him  to  cease :  without  his  own  reproach  he  shall 
"  cause  it  to  turn  upon  him.  Then  shall  he  turn  his 
"  face  toward  the  fort  of  his  own  land  ;  but  he  shall 
"  stumble,  and  fall,  and  not  be  found."  How  plain- 
ly do  we  here  sec  Pompey  and  Julius  Cassar.  And 
how  plainly  do  we  see  Octavius  Caesar  in  the  raisci" 
of  taxes  in  the  glory  of  the  kingdom.  This  may 
very  well  be  considered  as  having  relation  to  our  Sa- 
viour, who,  in  consequence  of  an  enrolment  for 
taxes,  was  bom  at  Bethlehem ;  who  also  was  called 
upon,  and  paid  taxes. 

From  the  21st  verse  of  the  11th  chapter  to  the  end, 
we  have  a  plain  description  of  Mahomet.  But  the 
prophet  does  not  tell  us  who  the  king  of  the  North 
is,  between  whom  and  Mahomet  there  Mere  such  se- 
vere contests. 

After,  the  raiser  of  taxes  comes  to  his  end ;  neithei 
in  anger  nor  in  battle,  and  thus  ended  the  great 
Roman  empire  :  it  was  peaceably  divided  by  Theo- 
dosius  tlie  Great,  A.  D.  392:  and  what  has  since 
been  called  the  eastern  empire,  was  given  to  one 
son,  sand  the  western  empire  to  another  son.  The 
wars  1  of  Mahomet,  or  the  Mahometans,  within  the 
limits  of  the  once  great  Roman  empire,  were,  for 
many  hundreds  of  3  ears,  principally  with  the  Empe- 
rors of  the  eastern  empire  alo]ie.     Jt  was  851  yearr. 


50 

aft&r  Mahomet's  rise,  before  Constantinople,  the  seat 
of  the  eastern  emperors,  was  taken  by  the  Mahome- 
tans, and  the  empire  had  an  entire  end  put  to  it. 

Chap.  xi.  ver.  21.       "  And  in  his  estate   shall 
"  stand  up  a  vile  person,  (Mahomet,)  to  whom  they 
"  shall  not  give  the  honour  of  the  kingdom  ;  but  he 
"  shall  come  in  peaceably,  and  obtain  the  kingdom 
"  by  flatteries  :  and  with  the  arms  of  a  flood  shall 
*'  they  be  overflown  from  before  him,  and  shall  be 
*'  broken,  yea,  also  the  prince  of  the  covenant.     And 
"  after  the  league  made  with  him,  he  shall  work  de- 
"  ceitfully  ;  for  he  shall  come  up,  and  shall  become 
*'  strong  with  a  small  people.     He  shall  enter  peace- 
"  ably  even  upon  the  fattest  places  of  the  province ; 
*'  and  he  shall  do  that  which  his  fathers  have  not 
*'  done,  nor  his  fathers'  fathers.     He  shall  scatter 
"  among  them  the  prey,  and  spoil,  and  riches  ;  yea, 
*'  and  he  shall  forecast  his  devices  against  the  strong 
^'  holds,  even  for  a  time.     And  he  shall  stir  up  his 
*'  power  and  his   courage  against  the  king  of  the 
*'  South  with  a  great  army ;  and  the  king  of  the  South 
"  shall  be   stirred  up  to  battle  with  a  great  and 
"  mighty  army  :  but  he  shall  not  stand,  for  they  shall 
**  forecast  devices  against  him.     Yea,  they  that  feed 
"  of  the  portion  of  his  meat  shall  destroy  him,  and  his 
"  army  shall  overflow ;  and  many  shall  fall  down 
*'  slain.     And  both  these  kings*  hearts  shall  be  to  do 
"  mischief,  and  they  shall  speak  lies  at  one  table ; 
"  but  it  shall  not  prosper :  for  yet  the  end  shall  be  at 
"  the  time  appointed.     Then  shall  he  return  into  his 
"  own  land  with  great  riches  ;  and  his  heart  shall  be 


51 

"  against  tlie  holy  covenant ;  and  he  shall  do  exploits, 

"  and  return  to  his  own  land.     At  the  time  appoint- 

"  cd  he  sifall  return,  and  come  toward  the  South  ; 

"  but  it  shall  not  be  as  the  former,  or  as  the  latter.    - 

'*  For  the  ships  of  Chittim  shall  come  against  him  ; 

*'  therefore  he  shall  be  grieved,  and  return,  and  have 

"  indignation  against  the  holy  covenant :    so  shall  he 

"  do  ;   he  shall  even  return,  and  have    intelligence 

*'  with  them  that  forsake  the  holy  covenant.     And 

"  arms  shall  stand  on  his  part,  and  they  shall  pollute 

"  the  sanctuary  of  strength,  and  shall  take  av»-ay  the 

"  daily,   (offerings,    or  prayers — there   is  no    sub- 

"  stantive,)  and  they  shall  place  the  abomination  that 

*'  maketh  desolate.       And    such   as    do   wickedly 

*'  against  the  covenant  shall  he  corrupt  by  flatteries  ; 

"  but  the  people  that  know  their  God  shall  be  strong, 

"  and  do  exploits.  And  they  that  understand  among 

"  the  people  shall  instruct  many  ;  yet  they  shall  fall 

*'  by  the  sword,  and  by  flume,  by  captivity,  and  by 

"  spoil,  many  days.     Now  when  they  shall  fall,  they 

*'  shall  be  holpen  with  a  little  help  ;  but  many  shall 

"  cleave  to  them  with  flatteries.     And  some  of  them 

"  of  understanding  shall  fall,  to  try  them,  and  to 

"  purge,  and  to  make  them  white,  even  to  the  time 

"  of  the  end  :  because  it  is  yet  for  a  time  appointed. 

"  And  the  king  shall  do  according  to  his  will ;  and 

"  he  shall  exalt  himself,  and  magnify  himself  above 

"  every  god,    and  shall    speak   marvellous    things 

"  against  the  God  of  gods,  and  shall  prosper  till  the 

"  indignation  be  accomplished  :  for  that  that  is  de- 

"  termined  shall  be.  done.     Neitlier  shall  he  regard 


?■  -  52 


**  the  God  of  his  fathers,  nor  the  desire  of  women, 
"  nor  regai-d  any  god  :  for  he  shall  magnify  himself 
"  above  all.  But  in  his  estate  shall  he  honour  the 
"  God  of  forces  :  and  a  god  whom  his  fathers  knew 
**  not  shall  he  honour  with  gold,  and  silver,  and  with 
**  precious  stones,  and  pleasant  things.  Thus  shall 
"  he  do  in  the  most  strong  holds  with  a  strange  god, 
"  whom  he  shall  acknowledge  and  increase  with 
".  glory  :  and  he  shall  cause  them  to  rule  over  many, 
"  and  shall  divide  the  land  for  gain.  And  at  the 
"  time  of  the  end  shall  the  king  of  the  South  push  at 
*'  him  ;  and  the  king  of  the  North  shall  come  against 
"  him  like  a  whirlwind,  with  chariots,  and  with 
"  horsemen,  and  with  ships ;  and  he  shall  enter  into 
''  the  countries,  and  shall  overflow  and  pass  over, 
"  He  shall  enter  also  into  the  glorious  land,  and  ma- 
"  ny  countries  shall  be  overthrown :  but  these  shall. 
"  escape  out  of  his  hand,  even  Edom,  and  Moab, 
"  and  the  chief  of  the  children  of  Ammon.  He 
''  shall  stretch  forth  his  hand  also  upon  the  countries  ; 
"  and  the  land  of  Egypt  shall  not  escape.  But  he 
'*  shall  have  power  over  the  treasures  of  gold  and 
''  silver,  and  over  all  the  precious  things  of  Egypt : 
'*  and  the  Lybians  and  the  Ethiopians  shall  be  at  his 
'*  steps.  But  tidings  out  of  the  East  and  out  of 
"  the  North,  shall  trouble  him ;  therefore  he  shall  go 
**  forth  with  great  fury  to  destroy,  and  utterly  to 
"  make  away  many.  And  he  shall  plant  the  taber- 
'*  nacles  of  his  palaces  between  the  seas  in  the  glo- 
"  rious  holy  mountain  :  yet  he  shall  come  to  his  end, 
"  and  none  shall  help  him." 


55 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  abominable  monster, 
Muhomet.  The  vi  e  person  is  a  king ;  he  obtains  a 
kingdom  sword  in  hand.  The  frequent  reiteration 
of  the  term  "  A<?,'*  can  have  no  rehition  to  any  other 
except  Mahomet  as  the  head.  The  characteristics, 
many  of  them,  ai*e  so  plain,  and  many  of  them  so 
clearly  established  by  profane  history,  even  by  the  in- 
fidel Gibbon  himself,  that  I  refer  the  reader  to  him, 
if  he  has  any  doubt  about  the  matter.  And  here  we 
have  unquestionably  a  fifth  head  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar's first  terrible  image.  And  in  chap.  xii.  5. 
Daniel  says,  "  Then  I,  Daniel,  looked,  and  behold 
there  stood  other  two,  the  one  on  this  side  of  the 
bank  of  the  River,  and  the  other  on  that  side  of  the 
bank  of  the  river."  Now  that  these  were  two  more 
savage  beasts,  is  unquestionable  ;  for  it  immediately 
follows,  "  How  long  shall  it  be  to  the  end  of  these 
wonders  ?''  and  it  is  confirmed  by  an  oath,  that  it 
shall  be  for  a  time^  timesy  and  an  half,  Daniel  has 
not  given  any  prophetic  history  of  the  Eastern  em- 
pire, except  what  is  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
Mahometans.  The  Western  empire  is  described  in 
Daniel  7th.  Now  these  tw^o  empires  must  be  the 
two  that  Daniel  saw,  one  on  one  side  of  the  river,  and 
one  on  the  other  side  :  which  was  literally  true  as  to 
the  Eastern  and  Western  empires.  We  see,  there- 
fore, that  Daniel  plainly  makes  seven  heads  to  Ne- 
buchadnezzar's terrible  image. 

W^e  will  now  take  a  cursory  view  of  the  7th  chap- 
ter. Verse  2d.  "  Daniel  spake,  and  said,  I  saw  in 
my  vision  by  night,  and  behold  the  four  winds  of  hea- 


54 

veil  strove  upon  the  great  sea.    And  four  great  beasts 
came  up  from  the  sea,  diverse  one  from  another." 

We  remark  here,  that  the  terms  "  great  sea^''"'  un- 
questionably mean  a  great  empire.  Now  if  four 
beasts  rose  out  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  great  sea^  then 
there  would  be  five  heads  to  the  terrible  image.  If 
they  rose  out  of  the  Medopersiun  empire,  then  there 
would  be  six  heads ;  but  if  they  rose  out  of  Alex- 
ander's great  sea,  as  they  unquestionably  did,  then 
there  would  be  seven  heads  to  the  terrible  image. 

"  The  first  was  like  a  lion,  and  had  eagles'  wings.  I 
beheld  till  the  wings  thereof  were  plucked,  and  it  was 
lifted  up  from  the  earth,  and  made  to  stand  on  the  feet 
as  a  man,  and  a  man's  heart  was  given  to  it." 

This  beast  is  the  Roman  empire,  which  originated 
in,  and  proceeded  from,  one  of  the  four  divisions  of 
Alexander's  empire,  as  the  prophet  expressly  tells  us, 
and  we  have  before  noticed.  Eagles'  wings  are  used 
symbolically  for  great  strength,  as  follows  : — "  mount 
up  as  it  were  07i  the  wings  of  eagles,  ru?i  and  not  be 
weary  walk  and  not  faint :''''  of  course,  plucking,  or 
depriving  the  beast  of  its  eagles'  wings  is  depriving 
it  of  its  strength :  and  by  being  raised  on  its  feet, 
signifies  a  division  of  the  empire  into  two  parts,  viz. 
the  Eastern  and  Western  empires,  the  feet  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's image. 

"  And  behold  another  beast,  a  second,  like  to  a 
bear,  and  it  raised  up  itself  on  one  side,  and  it  had 
three  ribs  in  the  mouth  of  it,  between  the  teeth  of  it ; 
and  they  said  unto  it,  Arise,  devour  much  flesh." 

We  have  before  seen  that  the  prophet  connects  im- 


mediately  the  vile  person,  or  Mahomet,  with  tht 
raiser  of  taxes.  We  therefore  say,  that  this  beast 
intends  Mahomet.  He  rose  up  on  one  side  of  the 
great  sea — he  made  himself  complete  master  of  three 
of  the  divisions  of  Alexander's  empire,  and  some 
part,  but  not  all,  of  Cassander's  division.  There  were 
but  four  ribs,  and  the  Mahometans  yet  hold  tiiree  oi 
them.     They  have  literally  devoured  much  flesh. 

"  After  this,  I  beheld,  and  lo,  another,  like  a  leo- 
pard, which  had  upon  the  back  of  it  four  wings  of  a 
fowl.  The  beast  had  also  four  heads,  and  domir.ion 
was  given  to  it." 

This  we  take  to  be  the  Eastern  empire,  the  sub- 
jects of  which  were  very  various  and  different.  The 
words  "  dominion  was  given  to  it,''^  are  decisive,  that 
this  beast  does  not  intend  the  third  in  the  terrible 
image,  or  Alexander's  empire.  But  dominion  was 
actually  given  this  beast,  and  it  is  one  of  the  feet  of 
the  first  beast. 

"  After  this,  I  saw  in  the  liight  visions,  and  be- 
hold a  fourth  beast,  dreadful,  and  terrible,  and  strong 
exceedingly,  and  it  had  great  iron  teeth.  It  devour- 
ed, and  brake  in  pieces,  and  stamped  the  residue  with 
the  feet  of  it.  And  it  was  diverse  from  all  the  beasts 
that  were  before  it :  and  it  had  ten  horns." 

This  we  take  to  be  the  western  empire,  and  that 
for  a  very  plain  reason.  The  great  undivided  Ro- 
man empire  never  had  ten  horns,  and  it  hud  ceased 
to  exist  long  before  the  horns  sprang  from  the  head 
of  this  beast.     It  is  agreed  by  all  commentators  that 


i6 

1  have  seen,  that  the  ten  horns,  or  nine  of  them,  be- 
gan to  exist  posterior  to  the  papal  hierarchy  ;  except 
such  as  have  endeavoured  to  find  out  ten  transient 
incursions  of  barbarians  into  Italy,  not  correspond- 
ing at  all  with  the  ten  kingdoms. 

"  I  considered  the  horns,  and  behold  there  came 
up  among  them  another  little  horn,  before  whom 
there  were  three  of  the  first  horns  plucked  up  by  the 
roots." 

The  papal  hierarchy  had  a  prior  existence  to  any 
of  the  ten  horns.  It  began  to  manifest  itself  at  the 
Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325 ;  and  gradually  pro- 
gressed in  power,  till  it  claimed,  and  indeed  possess- 
ed, in  a  great  degree,  authority  above  the  kings  of 
the  earth.  But  the  papal  hierarchy  never  plucked 
up  any  three  of  the  ten  horns,  therefore  the  little  horn 
and  papal  authority  are  distinctly  different  things. 

"  Thus  he  said,  the  fourth  beast  shall  be  the  fourth 
kingdom  upon  earthy  which  shall  be  diverse  from  all 
kingdoms,  and  shall  devour  the  whole  earth,  and 
shall  tread  it  down,  and  break  it  in  pieces.  And  the 
ten  horns  out  of  this  kingdom,  are  ten  kings  that 
shall  arise.  And  another  shall  rise  after  them^  and 
he  shall  be  diverse  from  the  first  j  and  he  shall  snbduc 
three  kings." 

The  following  are  the  characteristic  marks  of  the 
little  horn  : — 

1.  He  shall  speak  great  words  against  the  Most 
High. 


B1 

2.  He   shall    wear  out  the   Saints  of  the  Most 
High. 

3.  He  shall  think  to  change  times  and  laws. 

4.  And  thev  shall  be  given  into  his  hands,  until  a 
time,  and  times,  and  the  dividing  of  time. 

That  this  litde  horn  is  not  the  Pope,  we  may  bt 
sure  jof  from  these  circumstances  :  The  Pope  never 
plucked  up  by  the  roots  any  three  of  the  ten  horns — 
he  never  attempted  to  change  times  and  laws,  as  the 
new  Dynasty  in  Europe  has  done — and  they  never 
v.cre  given  into  his  hands.  The  Pope  is  no  longer 
a  beast ;  which  means  a  tyrannical,  civil,  or  ecclesi- 
astical government.  He  has  now  no  civil,  and  little 
ecclesiastical  power ;  whether  any,  may  be  a  ques- 
tion. The  prophet  says  of  the  little  horn,  "  1  be- 
held, even  till  the  beast  was  slain,  and  his  body  de- 
stroyed, and  given  to  the  burning  flame."  In  this 
manner  the  Pope  did  not  come  to  his  end. 

We  observe  further,  that  the  words,  "  imtila  time, 
times,  and  the  dividing  of  time,  or  half  a  time,  express 
no  period  of  time  at  all.  They  have  respect  to  the  end 
of  a  certain  1260  years,  and  therefore  do  not  convey 
an  idea  that  the  little  horn  shall  have  a  period  of  1260 
years.  The  powder  of  the  little  horn  terminates,  as 
specified,  at  the  end  of  the  Mahometan  period,  whose 
commencement  and  end  is  precisely  given  to  us. — 
The  words  until  and  Jbr  are  as  distinct  and  different 
in  Hebrew,  as  the}'  are  iii  English.  We  are  express 
ly  told,  that  the  little  horn  is  to  rise  up  after  the  ten 


5b 

horns,  but  not  long  after.  The  prophet  enlarges 
upon  the  characteristics  of  the  little  horn  more 
pointedly  than  he  docs  upon  the  beast  with  ten  horns, 
or  any  of  the  ten  horns,  in  order  that  we  may  know, 
by  the  characteristics,  the  character  itself,  when  the 
person  appears.  Faber  is  certainly  incorrect  in  sub- 
stituting the  word  "^or,"  in  the  place  of  "  until^** 
reading,  yor^  time,  &c. 

On  these  grounds,  we  feel  confident,  that  the  little 
horn  is  the  new  Dynasty  in  Europe.  A  few  more 
years  will  confirm  or  refute  my  construction. 

We  will  now  introduce  the  solemn  and  important 
conclusion  of  Daniel,  chap.  12. 

"  And  at  that  time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the 
*'  great  prince  which  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy 
*'  people,  and  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble,  such 
**  as  never  was  since  there  was  a  nation  even  to  the 
"  same  time.  And  at  that  time,  thy  people  shall  be 
"  delivered,  every  one  that  shall  be  found  written  in 
*'  the  book.  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
"  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting 
"  life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 
"  And  they  that  be  wise,  shall  shine  as  the  bright- 
*'  ness  of  the  firmament ;  and  they  that  turn  many 
**  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  for  ever  and  ever. — 
"  But  thou,  O  Daniel,  shut  up  the  words,  and  seal 
"  the  book,  even  to  the  time  of  the  end.  Many 
*'  sfiall  run  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  shall  be  in- 
"  creased.  Then  I,  Daniel,  looked,  and  behold 
"  there  stood  other  two,  the  one  on  this  side  of  the 


59 

*'  bank  of  the  river,  and  the  other  on  that  side  of  the 
"  bank  of  the  river.  And  one  said  to  tlie  man 
"  elothed  in  linen,  whicli  was  upon  the  waters  of  the 
''  river,  How  long  shall  it  be  to  the  end  of  these 
"  wonders  i^  And  I  heard  the  man  clothed  in  linen, 
"  which  was  upon  the  waters  of  the  river,  when  he 
"  held  up  his  right  hand  and  his  left  hand  to  heaven, 
"  and  swear  by  him  that  liveth  for  ever,  that  it  shall 
"  be  for  a  time,  times,  and  an  half.  And  when  he 
"  shall  have  accomplished  to  scatter  the  power  of  the 
"  holy  people,  all  these  things  shall  be  finished. — 
"  And  I  heard,  but  I  understood  not.  Then  said  I, 
"  O  my  Lord,  what  shdl  be  the  end  of  these  things  ? 
*'  And  he  said,  go  thy  way,  Daniel,  for  the  words  are 
"  closed  up  and  sealed  till  the  time  of  the  end.  Ma- 
"  ny  shall  be  purified,  and  made  white,  and  tried  ; 
"  but  the  wicked  shall  do  wickedly,  and  none  of  the 
"  wicked  shall  understand  :  but  the  wise  shall  un- 
"  derstand  ;  and  from  the  time  that  the  daily  (sacri- 
"  fice)  shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  abomination  that 
"  maketh  desolate  set  up,  there  shall  be  a  thousand 
"  two  hundred  and  ninety  da}'S.  Blessed  is  he  that 
"  waiteth  and  cometh  to  the  thousand  three  hundred 
"  and  five  and  thirty^  days.  But  go  thou  thy  way 
"  till  the  end  be  :  for  thou  shalt  rest,  and  stand  in  thy 
"  lot  at  the  end  of  the  days." 

This  12th  chapter  of  Daniel  unquestionably  closes 
the  drama  of  tyrannical  powers  on  earth.  The  first 
verse  is  immediatelv  connected  with  the  last  verse  of 
the  preceding  chapter,  ^vhich  says  of  the  Mahometan 


60 

power,  that,  "  he  shall  come  to  his  end,  and  none 
.shall  help  hhn."  Now,  whether  the  immediately 
following-  words,'"  At  that  time  shall  Michael  stand 
up,"  &c.  mean  at  the  very  time,  or  only  about  that 
time,  when  the  Mahometan  power  comes  to  an  end, 
may  be  a  question.  It  appears  to  me,  however, 
most  probable,  that  they  intend  the  very  time  when 
that  power  comes  to  an  end — and  that  the  deliverance 
of  God's  people  will  then  commence  ;  which  will  not 
be  effected  instantaneously,  but  in  a  course  of  years. 
It  appears  to  me  further,  that  we  are  to  understand  a 
literal  resurrection  by  these  words,  "  and  many  of 
hem  that  sleep  in  the  dust,  shall  awa|5:e,  some  to  ever- 
lasting life,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con- 
tempt." Daniel  is  ordered  to  shut  up  the  words, 
and  seal  the  book,  to  the  time  of  the  end.  From 
these  words  we  may  fairly  conclude,  that  the  book 
will  be  opened  and  unsealed  after  the  end.  The  little 
book  of  John  will  then  be  open. 

The  prophet,  commencing  with  the  2300  days,  or 
years,  either  at  tlie  beginning  or  close  of  Alexander's 
empire,  dwells  upon,  and  treats  largely,  of  the  tyran- 
nical governments  that  were  to  be,  till  the  end  of  the 
tyrannic  drama  :  and  he  asks,  in  this  12th  chapter, 
How  long  shall  it  he  to  the  end  of  these  wonders  ? 
that  is,  to  the  end  of  savage  and  cruel  goverments  ; 
for  his  visions,  as  recorded,  have  almost  a  sole  re- 
spect to  such  governments,  tlie  answer,  confirmed  by 
a  most  solemn  oath,  is,  that  they  shall  terminate  at 
t;ie  end  of  a  certain  1260  years ;  or,  that  the  Ma- 


61 

liometan  power  shall  then  terminate.  Now,  as  the 
last  tyrannical  power  described,  and  more  fully  and 
particularly  than  any  other,  is  unquestionably  the  Ma- 
hometan power,  who  St.  John,  under  the  term  of 
Gentiles,  informs  us,  shall  tread  under  foot  the  Holy 
City  1260  years  ;  we  must  therefore  conclude,  that 
Daniel's  period  of  1260  years,  embraces  the  begin- 
in,^  and  ending  of  the  Mahometan  delusion.  The 
prophet  says,  that  "  from  the  time  the  daily  (sacrifice, 
or  daily  prayers,)  shall  be  taken  away,  and  the  abomi- 
nation of  desolation  set  up,"  there  shall  be  1290 
days  ;  that  is,  30  years  more  than  the  1260.  What 
is  to  take  place  at  the  end  of  the  1290  days,  or  years, 
he  does  not  inform  us.  He  says  further,  "  Blessed 
is  he  that  waiteth  and  cometh  to  the  end  of  1335 
years,"  that  is,  45  years  lower  down ;  but  he  gives 
us  no  reason,  why  any  one  shall,  that  waiteth  to  the 
end  of  the  period,  be,  in  an  especial  manner,  blessed. 
Thus  we  find  75  years  more  than  the  1260  years. — 
And  as  to  the  events  that  arc  to  take  place  in  those 
75  years,  we  are  left  entirely  in  the  dark,  and  we  must 
form  the  best  opinion  that  we  can  of  them. 

We  will  give  our  opinion  of  this  matter  by  an  ar- 
gument strictly  analogical.  When  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation had  existed  1890  yeai"s,  from  the  institu- 
tion of  the  law  of  circumcision,  the  Saviour  of  the 
world  appeared.  Thirty  years  afterwards,  that  is, 
1920,  he  began  his  public  ministry.  Forty  years 
afterwards,  that  is,  1 960,  Jerusalem  was  beseigcd  and 
taken  by  Vespasian  and  Titus:  for  the  incredible 


6'2 

suftbrings  of  the  M'icked  and  obstinate  Jews  in  this 
%var,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Josephus.  Five  years  after- 
wards,  that  is,  1965,  the  Jews  were  banished  from 
their  country.  In  many  things  the  Jewish  Church, 
probably,  was  an  antitype  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  period  of  her  desolations  are  unquestionably 
precisely  marked  out  by  divine  providence :  and  we 
are  assured,  that  the  period  of  her  desolations,  is  the 
period  of  the  Gentile  Christian  Church. 

Now  the  analogy  is  as  follows  : — Mahomet  rose 
up  A.  D.  630 — the  period  of  the  Mahometan  delu- 
sion is  1260  years,  and  terminates  1890.  DaniePs 
30  years,  over  1260,  will  carry  us  to  1920,  and 
45  years  more,  will  carry  us  to  1965,  precisely 
the  same  as  the  Jewish  period. 

I  submit  this  analogical  argument  as  the  best  con- 
struction I  can  give  respecting  Daniel's  last  75  years, 
iqjprehending  that  John's  seven  thunders  belong  to 
them. 

My  ideas  of  the  term  "'  rw?,"  here  used,  being 
tliflerent  from  most  authors,  if  not  all,  except  the 
great  Locke,  I  will  make  no  comments  upon  it  at 
this  time. 


CHAPTER  11. 


^i  general  View  of  the  Periods  and  Characters  in  the 
Revelations — more  especially  of  the  temporal  ty- 
rannical Characters. 

X  HAVE  found  in  conversing  with  divines  eminent 
for  piety  and  learning,  that  they  are  exceedingly  op- 
posed to  the  opinion,  that  Daniel  represents  to  our 
view  seven  imperial  monarchies.     I  haA'c  searched, 
iis  carefully  as  I  am  capable  of,  for  a  reason  for  such 
opposition,  and  I  have  found  none  better  than  this  : 
the  Fathers^  and  indeed  the  Jcavs,  thought  there  were 
to  be  four  great  monarchies — that  the  great  Roman 
empire  was  the  fourth  and  last.     It  has  been  handed 
dowTi  from  father  to  son,  has  gained  the  advantage  of 
prescription,  and  it  is  now  little  less  than  denying  an 
article  of  faith,  to  be  of  the  opinion,  that  Daniel  pre- 
sents to  our  view  seven  great  empires.     It  is  true, 
that  John  exhibits  only  four  such  monarchies  to  us. 
He  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  have  brought  up  to 
our  view,  the  Babylonish,  the  Medopersian,  and  the 
Macedonian  empires,  as  being  on  the  stage  of  action 
during  any  part  of  the  Christian  dispensation  :  yet 
there  is  no  impropriety,  that  I  see,  in  his  representing 
to  us  those  three  tyrannical  heads,  thoutrh  long  since 
passed  away,  in  connexion  with  the  full  number  of 
such  heads  as  were  to  he  till  the  total  extermination 


64 

of  tyrannical  power.     John  lived,  and  Wrote  his  Re- 
velations, in  the  great  Roman  empire,  which  con- 
tinued one  great  and  undivided  empire  about  200 
years  afterwards.     But  the  emperors  embraced  the 
Christian  religion  about  80  years  before  its  dissolu- 
tion.    Constantine,  the  first  Christian  Emperor,  laid 
the  foundation  for  the  supremacy  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal hierarchy.     John's  exhibitions  and  descriptions  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  saints,  exceed  by  far  any 
thing  we  find  in  Daniel  respecting  them.     He  seems, 
in  these  things,  to  be  perfectly  at  home.     With  re- 
spect to  the  little  horn  that  rises  up  after  ten  others, 
Daniel  is  much  more  pointed  and  explicit.     But  he 
is  not  so  pointed  and  explicit  as  John  is  respecting 
the  Western  empire,  before  we  arrive  at  the  little 
horn.     John  saw  our  Saviour  in  the  execution  of  his 
public  ministry — his  crucifixion.     He  saw  him  after 
his  resurrection,  and  he  saw  him  ascending  to  glory. 
He  was  a  witness  to  the  miraculous  powers  that  the 
Saviour  possessed ;  and  of  those  that  were  commu- 
nicated to  himself.     The  destruction   of  the  Holy 
City,  and  the  dispersions  and  desolations  of  the  Jews, 
so  often  foretold  by  the  prophets,  passed  before  his 
eyes. 

We  find,  Rev.  i.  19.  that  John  is  commanded  to 
write  as  follows: — "  Write  the  things  which  thou 
hast  seen,  and  the  things  which  are,  and  the  things 
which  shall  be  hereafter."  The  beginning  of  the  4th 
chapter  is,  "  After  this,  I  looked,  and  behold  a  door 
was  opened  in  heaven  ;  and  th^  first  voice  which  I 


65 

heard,  was  as  it  wei*e  of  a  trumpet  talking  with  me, 
which  said,  Come  up  hidier,  and  I  will  shew  the^ 
those  things  which  must  be  hereafter." 

It  is  evident,  by  the  19th  verse  aforesaid,  thai 
John  was  commanded  to  write  a  history  of  three  dis- 
tinct sorts  of  things,  embracing  the  time  past,  pre- 
sent, and  to  come.  John  needed  no  divine  vision  to 
show  him  the  past,  especiiUly  as  to  those  things  of 
which  he  had  himself  been  a  witness,  nor  the  pre- 
sent. But,  in  order  that  he  might  be  qualified  to 
give  us  an  account  of  all  that  he  was  commanded  to 
write,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  ascend  to  hea 
ven,  and  there  be  shown  future  things. 

Irenaeus*  testimony  as  to  the  time  when  John  had 
the  visions  in  the  isle  of  Patmos,  is  believed  to  be 
perfectly  correct.  He  says,  "  The  Apocalypse  was 
seien  by  John  a  little  before  his  time,  at  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Domitian,"  who  died  Sept.  A.  D.  96  ;  just 
^6  years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Before 
John  began  to  ^vrite,  he  had  all  the  materials  of  the 
history  in  his  o^vn  mind. 

•  The  prophetic  language  of  Zechariah  conveys  to 
us,  in  highly  figurative  speech,  great  events  and  im** 
portant  evangelical  truths,  of  which,  it  does  no  where 
appear,  that  the  Jews  had  a  correct  view.  His  pro- 
phecies bring  us  down  to  the  Millennium.  And  as; 
he  says,  that  the  Word  of  the  Lwd  came  unto  him 
in  the  second  year  of  Darius,  that  is,  about  5<50  years 
before  the  Cliristiaii  asra,  we  ha^•e  in  them  cleai'  evi- 
dence of  divine  inspiration;  and  ti]e  \>erreptible  and 


66 

gradual  fulfilment  of  them,  is  as  miraculous,  as  any 
other  events  recorded  in  the  Bible,  such  as  the  sun's 
standing  still,  and  the  dead  being  raised  to  life.     The 
Scriptures  are  a  continued  miracle.     It  requires  only 
a  candid  and  patient  examination  of  them,  to  be 
convinced  that  this  is  an  important  and  serious  fact. 
Chap.  i.  8.     "I  saw  by  night,  and  behold  a  man 
riding  upon  a  red  horse,  and  he  stood  among  the 
myrtle  trees  that  were  in  the  bottom;  and  behind 
him  were  red  horses,  speckled,  and  white.     These 
are  they  whom  the  Lord  hath  sent  to  walk  to  and  fro 
through  the  earth :  and  behold  all  the  earth  sitteth 
still,  and  is  at  rest."     Ver.  18.     "  Then  lifted  I  up 
mine  eyes,  and  saw,  and  behold,  four  horns.     And  I 
said  unto  the  angel,  What  be  these  ?     And  he  said 
unto  me,  these  are  the  horns  which  have  scattered 
Judah,  Israel,  and  Jerusalem.     And  the  Lord  shew- 
ed me  four  carpenters.     Then  said  I,  What  come 
these  to  do  ?     And  he  spake,  saying,  those  are  the 
horns  which  have  scattered  Judah,  so  that  no  man 
did  lift  up  his  head :  but  these  are  come  to  fray  them, 
to  cast  out  the  horns  of  the  Gentiles,  which  lifted  up 
their  horn  over  the  land  of  Judah  to  scatter  it.'' 

We  observe,  that  the  horses  and  horns  are  symbo- 
lical of  tyrannical  empu-es  and  powers,  and  that  Ju- 
dah, Israel,  and  Jerusalem,  were  not  scattered  and  dis- 
persed among  the  Gentiles  that  dwell  in  the  four 
winds  of  heaven,  by  the  Babylonish,  Medopersian, 
or  Macedonian  empires.  TMs  was  the  work  of  im- 
perial Rome.  And  the  Mahometans,  as  well  as  the 
Eastern  and  Western  empires,  have  been  constantly 


67 

opposed  to  the  Jews  ;  ha\'e  despised,  persecuted,  and 
continued  to  keep  them  scattered  and  dispersed. — ■ 
These,  we  doubt  not,  are  the  lour  horns  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, which  Hfted  up  their  horns  over  the  land  of  Ju- 
dah  to  scatter  it.  Whether  the  fom*  carpenters,  or 
;u"chitects,  may  not  mean  the  same  as  John's  four 
fning  creatures,  I  leave  for  others  to  reflect  upon  can- 
didly and  seriously.  At  present,  no  objection  oc- 
curs to  my  mind  against  this  construction. 

Chap.  2d.  "  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes,  and  behold 
a  man  with  a  measuring  line  in  his  hand.  Then  said 
I,  whither  goest  thou  ?  And  he  said  unto  me,  to 
measure  Jerusalem.  Jerusalem  shall  be  inhabited  as 
towns  without  walls,  for  the  multitude  of  men  and 
cattle  therein.  Deliver  thyself,  O  Zion,  that  dwellest 
with  the  daughter  of  Babylon.  Flee  from  the  land  of 
the  North,  saith  the  Lord,  for  I  have  spread  you 
abroad  as  the  four  winds  of  hea^'en.  After  the  glory, 
liath  he  sent  me  unto  the  nations  which  spoiled 
you  :  for  he  that  toucheth  you,  toucheth  the  apple  of 
his  eye.  Sing,  and  rejoice,  O  daughter  of  Zion,  for 
I  will  come  and  dwell  in  the  midst  of  thee.'' 

The  time  for  the  fulfilment  of  some  of  these  pro- 
phecies, we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  is  still  fu- 
ture. Jerusalem  has  already  been  measured.  It  is 
the  same  measuring  Which  John  mentions,  Rev.  11th. 
And  the  time  when  this  measurement  was  to  be 
made,  v/as  when  the  Mahometans,  A.  D.  637,  took 
Jerusalem,  as  we  apprehend  is  evident  from  what 
John  says  about  it.  We  see  here,  that  Babylon  is 
the  name  to  designate  idolatrous  worshippers  bv. — 


68 

The  Daughter  of  Babylon  is  essentially  diflfcrent 
from  tlie  Daughter  of  Zion, 

The  wliole  of  the  third  chapter  has  respect  to 
Christ  aiid  his  Church.  The  fourth  Chapter  gives 
an  account  of  a  candlestick  all  of  gold,  and  of  two 
olive  trees.  The  candlestick  of  pure  gold,  so  mani- 
festly points  out,  that  the  fountain  and  source  from 
^vhence  proceeded  the  Mosaic  and  the  Christian  dis- 
pensations, is  one  and  the  same ;  and  that  the  two 
^live  trees  intend  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian 
Churches  ;  that  no  arguments  in  support  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  these  ideas  need  to  be  adduced. 

Chap.  5th.  "  I  lifted  up  mine  eyes,  and  behold 
a  flying  roll,  &c.  This  is  the  curse  that  goeth  forth 
over  the  fj\ce  of  the  whole  earth  :  for  every  one  that 
stealeth  shall  be  cut  off,  and  every  one  that  sweareth 
shall  be  cut  off.  I  will  bring  it  forth,  saith  the  Lord 
of  hosts,  and  it  shall  enter  into  the  house  of  the  thief, 
and  into  the  house  of  him  that  sweareth  falsely  by 
my  name,  and  it  shall  remain  in  the  midst  of  his 
house,  and  shall  consume  it,  with  the  timber  thereof, 
and  the  stones  thereof." 

Though  it  be  not  pertinent  to  our  main  inquiry, 
yet  we  cannot  but  observe  here,  that  there  is  no  curse 
denounced  against  him  that  sweareth  correctly  by  the 
name  of  the  Lord.  Oaths  taken  before  magistrates 
authorized  to  administer  them,  in  order  to  arrive  at 
the  truth,  are  admissible ;  and  he  that,  under  such 
oath,  adheres  strictly  to  the  truth,  will  be  cleai*  from 
the  curse  contained  in  the  flying  roll. 


.«!a:r- 


69 

3y  this  fiying  roily  we  understand  an  open  book  ; 
and  diat  it  synchronizes  with,  and  intends  the  same, 
as  John's  little  open  book*",  Rev.  x.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  the  millennium,  and  not  before,  the 
litde  book  will  be  open,  Rev.  x.  7.  "  the  mystery  of 
God  shall  be  finished." 

Chap.  V.  5.  "  Then  the  angel  that  talked  with 
me,  said  unto  me,  Lift  up  thine  eyes,  and  see  what  is 
this  that  goeth  forth.  And  I  said,  what  is  it  ?  And 
he  said,  this  is  an  Ephah  that  goeth  forth.  He  said, 
moreover,  this  is  their  resemblance  through  all  the 
earth.  And  behold  there  was  lifted  up  a  talent  of 
lead ;  and  this  is  a  woman  that  sitteth  in  the  midst  of 
the  Ephah  ;  and  he  said,  this  is  wickedness.  And 
he  cast  the  weight  of  lead  upon  the  mouth  thereof. 
Then  lifted  I  up  mine  eyes,  and  looked,  and  behold 
there  came  out  two  women,  and  the  wind  "svas  in  their 
wings,  (for  they  had  wings  like  the  wings  of  a  stork,) 
and  they  lifted  up  the  Ephah  between  the  earth  and 
the  heaven.  Then  said  I  to  the  angel,  whither  do 
these  bear  the  Ephah  ?  And  he  said  unto  me,  to 
build  it  a  house  in  the  land  of  Shinar,  and  it  shall  be 
established  there,  and  set  upon  her  own  base.'' 

Commentators  have  explained  this  passage  of  pro- 
phecy very  A-ariously.  We  will  simply  give  our 
own  opinion  of  it.  The  Ephah  natuniUy  imports  a 
vessel  of  capacity,  applicable  to  what  is  called  "  Dry 

*  "  Volutnen,  i.  e.  pellis,  sivc  membrana,  sive  codex,  -*t''3= 
est  liber  itascriptus,  ut  conyolvi  possit.  \\\\\Ci,volans  signi- 
ficat  fuisse  apertvim."  Pol.  Syn. 


70 

Measure.^''  The  prophet  explains  what  is  meant  by 
the  symbolical  term  "  Woman.'^  The  weight  of 
lead  being  placed  upon  the  mouth  or  open  part  of  the 
Ephah  in  which  the  woman  sat,  naiurally  imports  a 
strict  confinement  of  the  woman,  or  wickedness. — 
Thus  far  the  prophecy  does  not  seem  to  be  very 
mysterious.  The  only  difficulty  is,  what  are  we  to 
understand  by  the  symbolical  terms  "  two  women  ?'* 
I  answer,  (because  it  does  not  appear  to  me,  any  other 
answer  can  be  given,)  they  mean  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  saints,  employed  in  a  great  and  solemn 
work,  after,  or  at  the  commencement  of  the  Millen- 
nium. The  woman  in  the  confined  Ephah,  or  wick- 
edness, intends  the  daughter  of  Babylon — Mystery, 
Babylon  the  Great.  Her  wicked  descendants  bear 
the  name  of  the  first  great  prophetic  head.  The 
Daughters  of  Zion,  and  the  Daughters  of  Babylon, 
are  universal  terms,  embracing  two  essentially  difier- 
ent  classes  of  the  human  race.  At  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Millennium  in  glory,  and  not  beiore,  the 
weight  of  lead  will  be  placed  upon  the  mouth  of  the 
Ephah — the  daughter  of  Babylon  will  be  strictly 
confined. 

Chap.  6th.  "  And  I  turned,  and  lifted  up  mine 
eyes,  and  looked,  and  behold  there  came  four  chariots 
out  from  between  two  mountains,  and  the  mountains 
were  mountains  of  brass.  In  the  first  chariot  were 
red  horses,  and  in  the  second  chariot  were  black 
horses,  and  in  the  third  chariot  white  horses,  and  in  the 
fourth  chariot  bay,  (strong,)  hordes.  Then  I  answer- 
ed, and  said  unto  the  angel,  what  are  these,  my  Lord  ? 


71 

And  the  angel  said,  diese  are  die  four  spirits,  (winds,) 
of  heaven,  which  go  forth  from  standing  before  the 
Lord  of  all  the  earth.  The  black  horses  go  forth 
into  the  North  country-,  and  the  white  go  forth  after 
them.  And  the  grisled,  (spotted,)  go  towards  tlie 
South  country.  And  the  bay  went  forth,  and  sought 
to  go,  that  they  might  walk  to  and  fro  through  the 
earth.  .Vnd  he  said,  Get  ye  hence,  walk  to  and  fro 
through  the  earth.  So  diey  walked  to  and  fro  through 
the  earth." 

**  Obscurissima  est  haec  visio  ;  de  cujus  scopo  et 
sensu,  non  liquet,  sed  conjecturis  agitur."    Pol.  Syn. 

One  matter  in  this  prophecy  is  not  obscure  ;  which 
is,  that  the  chariots  and  horses  intend  either  great 
temporal  or  spiritual  powers.  If  spiritual,  the  time 
for  their  going  forth,  we  would  refer  to  the  beginning 
of  the  Millennium.  If  they  intend  great  temporal 
powers,  which  is  most  probably  the  case,  then  the 
only  difficulty  that  occurs  to  me  is  this,  what  are  we 
to  understand  by  the  two  mountains  of  brass  ?  It 
must  be  evident,  that  if  we  can  affix  correct  ideas  to 
these  symbolical  terms,  the  others  w'lW  not  be  difficult 
as  to  the  explanation  we  assume,  that  the  mountains 
intend  great  temporal  powers.  And  the  first  of  them 
we  take  to  be  Alexander's  empire,  described  by  Da- 
niel, '*  his  belly  and  his  thighs  of  brass. "  And  the 
second,  the  Roman  empire,  of  which  Daniel  says, 
"  The  fourth  kingdom  shall  be  strong  as  iron."  The. 
term  "  between.,''''  has  respect  to  time.  The  Medo- 
persian  empire  was  between  the  Babylonish  and  the 
Macedonian  empires.        This   construction  of  the 


72 

term  **  betweeuy^  is  necessary,  if  the  two  mountains 
intend  two  empires  :  for  before  the  division  of  the 
great  Roman  empire,  no  two  great  prophetic  empires 
were  contemporary.  Now  it  is  CAident,  that  if  the 
two  mountains  intend  those  two  empires,  the  ex- 
planation of  the  vision  becomes  perfectly  easy.  The 
chariots  and  horses  must  intend  the  four  kingdoms 
that  arose  out  of  the  ruins  of  Alexander's  empire, 
which  were  literally  between  that  and  the  Roman  em- 
pire. There  seems  to  be  a  propriety  in  confining- 
these  visions  to  the  interval  of  time  between  these 
two  empires ;  because  the  work  to  be  performed  by 
the  chariots  and  horses,  does  not  appear  to  be  so 
great  and  extensive  as  jhat  of  the  four  horns,  by 
whom  Judah,  Israel,  and  Jerusalem,  were  to  be  scat- 
tered and  dispersed.  And  further,  if  the  chariots 
and  horses  do  not  belong  to  this  period  of  time,  those 
four  kingdoms  are  not  noticed  by  this  prophet ;  yet 
two  of  them,  the  Syrian  and  the  Egyptian  monarchies, 
were  very  bitter  scourges  to  the  Jewish  nation.  They, 
however,  did  not  scatter  Judah,  Israel,  and  Jerusalem. 

This  evangelical  prophet  holds  out  to  the  Jews 
the  brightest  prospects  of  future  happiness.  The 
happiness  has  not  yet  been  realized:  and  he  did  not 
tell  them  when  it  would  be.  This  was  not  revealed 
to  him,  or  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been,  from  any 
thing  he  has  left  on  record. 

John  gives  an  account  of  four  living  creatures, 
chap.  iv.  7.  "  And  the  first  beast  was  like  a  lion, 
and  the  second  beast  was  like  a  calf,  and  the  third 
beast  had  a  face  as  a  man,  and  the  fourth  beast  was' 


/J 


like  a  flying  eagle.  And  the  four  beasts  had  each  of 
them  six  wings  about  him,  and  they  rest  not  day  and 
night,  saying,  holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God  Almighty, 
which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come."  Chap.  v.  8. 
"  And  when  he  had  taken  the  book,  the  four  beasts^ 
and  four  and  twenty  elders,  fell  down  before  the 
Lamb,  having  every  one  of  them  harps,  and  golden, 
vials  full  of  odours,  which  are  the  prayers  of  saints. 
And  they  sung  a  new  song,  saying.  Thou  art  worthy 
to  take  the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof:  for 
thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy 
blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people, 
and  nation  ;  and  hast  made  us  unto  our  God,  kings 
and  priests  :  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth." 

John  sees,  in  vision,  these  living  creatures  long  be- 
fore their  actual  existence.  The  beloved  disciple 
will  unquestionably  be  one  of  the  four  and  twenty 
elders  ;  he,  therefore,  sees  himself  in  ^'ision.  Now, 
we  are  persuaded,  that  no  other  good  reason  can  be 
given  why  they  are  distinguished  by  different  charac- 
teristics, and  are  called  four,  but  this,  that  they  be 
longed  to  four  different  tyrannical  governments  ;  that 
is,  imperial  Rome,  the  Mahometan  kingdom,  the 
Eastern  empire,  and  the  Western  empire,  including 
the  ten  honis,  and  the  little  horn.  When  the  seal  is 
opened  that  exhibits  the  temporal  government  under 
which  they  were  to  live,  they  severally  stand  by,  and 
say,  Come  and  sec. 

f  First  Seal.  J     Rev.  vi.  1.     "  And  I  saw,  when 
the  Lamb  opened  one  of  the  seals,  and  I  heard,  as  it 


74 

were,  the  voice  of  thunder,  one  of  the  four  beasts, 
saying,  Come  and  see.  And  I  saw,  and  behold,  a 
white  horse,  and  he  that  sat  on  him  had  a  bow  :  and 
a  crown  was  given  to  him,  and  he  went  forth,  con- 
quering and  to  conquer." 

This  vision  exhibits  Jesus  Christ  arising  trium- 
phantly from  the  grave,  and  the  commencement  of 
his  spiritual  conquests  after  his  ascension  to  glorJ^ — 
To  this  idea  many  expositors  have  assented ;  yet  have 
strangely  supposed,  that  the  characteristics  have  a 
double  reference,  and  principally  to  some  individual 
Roman  Emperor.  Vespasian  has  been  fixed  upon, 
who  had  been  dead  nearly  twenty  years  before  John 
had  this  vision.  How  can  these  symbols  be  applied 
to  any  Roman  Emperor  ?  A  white  horse,  an  emblem 
of  speed,  strength,  and  purity :  a  bow,  a  po\^^^rful, 
warlike  weapon,  and  the  vision  intimates,  that "  his 
bow  shall  abide  in  strength;"  for  he  commences 
conquering,  and  goes  on  to  a  final  conquest  of  all 
enemies.  A  crown  is  an  emblem  of  glory.  If  these 
characteristics  were  applicable  to  any  Roman  empe- 
ror, surely  they  could  not,  with  any  propriety,  be 
applied  to  one  that  was  dead  before  John  saw  the  vi-  - 
sion ;  to  one  stripped  of  his  bow  and  his  crown  ;  but 
to  some  one  that  should  li\'e  after  Domitian  was 
dead. 

Now,  as  these  expositors  make  seven  seals  and 
four  trumpets  come  down  no  lower  than  A.  D.  476, 
when  a  final  end,  under  the  4th  trumpet,  is  put  to  the 
Caesars  in  the  West,  as  they  suppose,  and  correctly 
too,  they  assign  to  seven  seals  and  four  trumpets 


75 

ubout  300  years  only ;  of  course  the  other  three 
trumpets  and  se\  en  vials  must  embrace  a  period  o^ 
1524  years,  to  bring  us  to  A.  D.  2000,  when  they 
suppose  the  seventh  vial  will  end  :  an  absurdity  too 
gross  to  be  admitted  a  moment.  According  to  their 
ideas,  John  has  not  once  hinted  at  the  persecutions 
of  the  Christians  in  the  first  century,  unless  we  grant 
tliat  lie  travels  back  to  dead  emperors. 

We  consider  it  as  a  fact  capable  of  demonstration, 
that  the  seals  embrace  no  chronological  series  of 
events.  They  are  introduced  for  a  >ery  different 
purpose.  The}-  arc  precisely  in  the  nature,  that  is, 
the  first  four  of  them,  of  "Daniel's  four  great  beasts, 
which  mean  four  great  empires.  The  first  seal  does 
not  exhibit  imperial  Rome,  as  Daniel's  first  beast 
does.  The  second,  third,  and  fourth  seals  ex- 
hibit die  same  empires  that  Daniel's  second,  third, 
and  fourth  beasts  do.  The  remaining  three  seals, 
embrace  no  period  of  time.  After  the  seventh  seal 
is  opened,  and  the  trumpets  begin  to  sound,  John 
will  treat  of  these  tyrannical  empires  in  the  same  or- 
der that  Daniel,  as  well  as  himself,  has  placed  them. 

There  is  a  good  reason,  why  John's  first  seal,  and 
Daniel's  first  beast,  are  not  under  similar  character- ' 
istics.  Daniel  saw  only  the  savage  beast,  and  that 
during  the  whole  of  its  existence.  If  John  com- 
mences his  prophecies  at  the  time  of  our  Saviour's 
ascension  to  glory,  the  great  Roman  empire  had  then 
been  in  existence  about  85  years.  John  did  not  sec 
its  commencement.  It  would  have  exceeded  the 
command  given  to  him,   "    JFrite  what  thou  hast 


76 

sten^"^  if  he  had  given  to  us  the  complete  and  entire 
beast,  as  Daniel  had  it  in  his  vision. 

The  meaning  of  the  first  seal  we  take  to  be  this : 
Jesus  Christ  is  introduced  to  our  view  as  a  conquer^ 
or,  who  will  go  on  conquei^ing,  till  the  tyrannical  go- 
vernments of  this  world  are,  in  the  language  of  Da- 
niel, "  broken  in  pieces  together,  and  become  like 
the  chaff  of  the  summer  threshing  floors ;  and  the 
wind  carried  them  away,  and  no  place  was  found  for 
them." 

It  was  not  necessary  that  we  should  be  told  by 
John,  that  Jesus  Christ  rose  up  in  imperial  Rome. — 
Daniel's  first  beast,  that  is,  imperial  Rome,  he  says, 
was  like  a  lion.  The  living  creature  that  stands  by, 
when  the  first  seal  is  opened,  and  says  to  John,  Come 
aiid  see,  he  says,  was  like  a  lion.  If  ever  Christians 
exhibited  a  lion-like  courage,  it  was  during  the  time 
of  Pagan  imperial  Rome.  Their  lives  were  not  sd 
dear  to  them  as  their  rehgion.  Rev,  xii.  11.  Pro- 
bably referring  to  this  very  time.  *'  And  they  over- 
came him  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  and  by  the 
word  of  their  testimony :  and  they  loved  not  their 
lives  unto  the  death." 

We  find  nothing  in  Daniel  that  has  any  resem- 
blance to  the  four  living  creatures.  But  in  Ezek. 
chap.  i.  we  have  descriptions  which  seem  to  embrace 
them.  "  And  out  of  the  midst  thereof  came  four 
Iwiiig  creatures,'^'*  &c. 

(Second  Seal. J  Chap.  \i,  '3.  "  And  when  he 
iiad  opened  the  second  seal,  I  heard  the  second  beast 
say,  Come  and  see.     .'Vnd  there  went  out  another 


77 

liorse  tliat  was  red  :  and  power  was  given  to  hiinihai 
sat  thereon,  to  take  peace  from  the  earth  ;  and  that 
they  should  kill  one  another.  And  there  was  given 
unto  him  a  gieat  sword." 

By  this  horse  and  the  rider,  we  have  represented  to 
lis  the  Mahometan  Dynasty  or  Dynasties,  being  one 
of  the  seven  great  heads.  And  by  the  second  living 
creature,  we  apprehend  that  we  are  to  understand, 
faithful  Christians  that  lived  and  died  within  the  limits 
of  the  Mahometan  jurisdiction.  The  symbol  is  a 
calf,  signifying  its  weak  and  dependant  state.  We 
place  the  Mahometan  head  immediately  after  impe- 
rial Rome,  the  fourth  head,  as  Daniel  has  placed  it. 

(Third  Seal. J  Chap.  vi.  5.  "  And  when  he 
had  opened  the  third  seal,  I  heard  the  third  living 
creature  say,  Come  and  see.  And  I  beheld,  and  lo, 
a  black  horse,  and  he  that  sat  on  him,  had  a  pair  of 
balances  in  his  hand.  And  I  heard  a  voice  in  the 
midst  of  the  four  living  creatures,  say,  A  measure  of 
wheat  for  a  penny,  and  three  measures  of  biirley  for  a 
penny  :  and  see  thou  hurt  not  the  oil  and  the  wine.'' 

This  black  horse,  and  the  rider  on  him,  in  con- 
formity with  Daniel,  means  the  Eastern  empire,  and 
the  sixth  head  of  the  gi-eat  red  dragon.  The  Greek 
words  rendered  "  a  pair  of  balances ^''^  might  have 
been  translated,  "  a  yoke  in  his  hand ;''^  a  mark  of 
subjection.  Perhaps  there  never  M'as  a  nation  whose 
sufferings  were  greater  than  those  of  the  subjects  of 
the  Eastern  Empire  from  A.  D.  630,  to  A.  D.  1453, 
when  the  Turkish  Mahometans  put  an  end  to  it.  The 


78 

black  horse,  and  tlie  rider  on  him,  are  symbols  of 
^vretchedness. 

We  are  not  informed,  who  it  is  that  utters  his 
voice  in  the  midst  of  the  four  living  creatures.  We 
have  no  reason  to  think  that  it  is  the  rider  on  the 
black  horse ;  but  that  it  was  the  voice  of  warning  to 
the  subjects  of  the  Eastern  empire,  intimating  that 
they  would  be  in  subjection  to  the  rider  on  the  red 
horse ;  that  is,  the  Mahometans.  The  unfortunate 
Eastern  empire  was,  the  greatest  part  of  it,  made 
tributaiy  to  them  in  less  than  250  years  after  the  di- 
vision of  imperial  Rome,  signified,  as  I  apprehend, 
by  the  words,  "  a  measure  of  wheat  for  a  penny,  and 
three  measures  of  barley  for  a  penny."  The  Malio- 
metans  allowed  the  Christians  a  choice  as  to  three 
things,  which  were,  the  sword,  tribute,  or  circumci- 
sion ;  a  mark  of  Mahometanism.  The* words,  "  and 
see  thou  hurt  not  the  oil  and  the  wine,"  are  a  com- 
mand given  to  the  Mahometans,  which  were  literally 
fulfilled  by  the  orders  that  the  first  Caliph  and  the 
immediate  successor  of  Mahomet,  gave  to  the  chiefs 
of  his  army  when  they  were  going  to  make  their  first 
attack  on  the  Eastern  empire. 

(Fourth  Seal.)  Chap.  vi.  7.  "  And  when  he 
had  opened  the  fourth  seal,  I  heard  the  voice  of  the 
fourth  living  creature  say.  Come  and  see.  And  I 
looked,  and  behold,  a  pale  horse,  and  his  name  that 
sat  on  him  was  Death,  and  hell  followed  with  him. — 
And  power  was  given  to  him  over  the  fourth  part  of 
the  earth,  to  kill  with  the  sword,  and  with  hunger, 
and  with  death,  and  ^vith  the  beasts  of  the  earth." 


79 

The  pale  horse,  is  a  symbol  of  the  Western  em- 
pire, the  Caisars,  the  Papal  liierarchies,  the  ten  horns, 
and  the  little  horn.  Thus  John  has  exhibited  to  us, 
the  great  temporal,  ecclesiastieal,  and  tyrannical  pow- 
ers, about  whom,  and  within  whose  limits,  his  future 
prophecies  will  be  employed.  There  is  one  singular 
description  given  of  the  commission  of  this  pale 
horse,  not  to  be  found  elsewhere  ;  which  is,  "  And 
power  was  given  to  him  over  the  fourth  part  of  the 
earth.''  We  shall  find  hereafter,  that  in  several  in- 
stances, severe  judgments  are  to  be  inflicted  on  a 
third  part  of  the  earth  :  and  as  the  globe  was  divided 
into  but  three  parts  when  John  wrote,  viz.  Asia, 
Africa,  and  Europe,  expositors  have  supposed,  that 
by  the  terms  "  third  part  ^"^  some  one  of  these  great 
divisions  is  intended.  If  the  new  dynasty  in  Europe 
be  a  part  of  the  pale  horse,  perhaps  we  might  infer, 
that  its  power  will  never  be  extended  beyond  the 
confines  of  Europe  ;  being  now  but  a  fourth  part  of 
the  globe.  "  Death  and  hell,"  are  plainly  symbols 
of  the  judgments  that  are  to  be  inflicted  on  the  little 
horn.     See  Dan.  vii. 

As  I  have  not  found,  that  any  expositors  have  sup- 
posed that  the  fifth  seal  embraces  any  period  of  time, 
I  will  not  introduce  it.  No  living  creatures  stand  by 
and  say.  Come  and  see,  when  the  fifth,  sixth,  and 
seventh  seals  are  opened ;  which  confirms  me  in  the 
opinion,  that  I  have  not  given  a  meaning  too  exten- 
sive to  tlie  first  four  seals. 

Chap.  vi.  12.  "  And  I  beheld,  when  he  had  open- 
ed tlie  sixth  seal,  and  lo,  there  was  a  great  earthquake, 


-I  ^ 


80 

and  the  sun  became  black  as  sackcloth  of  hair,  and 
the  moon  became  as  blood,  and  the  stars  of  heaven 
fell  unto  the  earth,  even  as  a  fig-tree  casteth  her  un- 
timely figs,  when  she  is  shaken  of  a  mighty  wind  : 
and  the  heaven  departed  as  a  scroll  when  it  is  rolled 
together :  and  every  mountain  and  island  were  mov- 
ed out  of  their  places  :  and  the  kings  of  the  earth, 
and  the  great  men,  and  the  rich  men,  and  the  chief 
captains,  and  the  mighty  men,  and  every  bondman, 
and  every  freeman,  hid  themselves  in  the  dens,  and 
in  the  rocks  of  the  mountains  :  and  said  to  the  moun- 
tains and  rocks,  fall  on  us,  and  hide  us  from  the  face 
of  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  from  the  wrath 
of  the  Lamb  ;  for  the  great  day  of  his  wrath  is  come, 
and  who  shall  be  able  to  stand  ?" 

Here  we  have  represented  to  us,  the  extermination 
of  the  Jewish  nation  ;  the  commencement  of  a  long 
desolation  on  account  of  transgression.  History  in- 
forms us,  that  Vespasian  was  the  minister  of  ven- 
geance, Josephus,  a  Jew,  has  recorded  the  unspeak- 
able sufferings  of  the  Jewish  nation,  in  their  wars 
with  Vespasian  and  Titus,  A.  D.  70.  We  refer  the 
reader  to  him,  for  a  history  of  one  of  the  most  tragi- 
cal events  that  we  have  any  where  recorded.  Such, 
only  much  more  dreadful,  will  be  the  catastrophe  at 
the  close  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  or  rather,  of 
tyrannical  governments. 

Nothing  that  we  find  contained  in  the  7th  chapter, 
is  derived  from  the  contents  of  the  sixth  seal.  The 
first  nine  verses  are  principally  an  epilogue  following 
immediately  the  final  destruction  of  the  Jewish  na- 


81 

tion :  and  from  the  9th  verse  to  the  end  of  the  chap- 
ter, ^ve  ha\  e  a  prologue  to  the  drama  of  the  Christian 
dispensation,  embracing  particularly  the  great  num- 
ber that  will  be  saved  in  the  period  of  the  Millen- 
nium. This  construction  seems  to  be  correct,  be- 
cause the  four  living  creatures  were  such  as  lived 
and  died  in  the  faith  during  the  persecuting  tyranny 
of  the  temporal  beasts.  In  this  view,  this  prologue 
contains  serious  and  important  information.  We 
have  said,  that  Vespasian  put  an  end  to  the  Jewish 
nation.  The  Jewish  dispensation,  however,  ended 
with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Chap.  viii.  "  And  when  he  had  opened  the  7th 
seal,  tliere  was  silence  in  heaven  about  the  space  of 
half  an  hour." 

*'  And  I  saw  the  seven  angels  which  stood  before 
God,  and  to  them  were  given  seven  trumpets." 

"  And  another  angel  came  and  stood  at  the  altar, 
having  a  golden  censer.  And  there  was  given  unto 
him  much  incense,  that  he  should  offer  it  with  the 
prayers  of  all  the  saints  upon  the  golden  altar  which 
was  before  the  throne.'* 

"  And  the  smoke  of  the  incense  which  came  with 
the  prayers  of  the  saints,  ascended  up  before  God  out 
of  the  angel's  hand." 

**  And  the  angel  took  the  censer,  and  filled  it  with 
fire  off  the  altar,  and  cast  it  into  the  earth.  And  there 
were  voices,  and  thunderings,  and  lightnings,  and 
an  earthquake.'' 

"And  the  seven  angels  which  had  the  seven  trum- 
pets, prepiured  themselves  to  sound." 

M 


82 

"  The  first  angel  sounded,  and  there  followed  hail 
and  fire  mingled  with  blood :  and  they  were  cast 
upon  the  earth,  and  the  third  part  of  trees  was  burnt 
up,  and  all  green  grass  was  burnt  up." 

The  sound  of  the  trumpet  gives  an  alarm  for  battle. 
The  opening  of  a  seal  has  not  naturally  any  such 
signification.  The  instrument  itself  proceeds  from 
the  seal  before  it  is  made  to  give  any  sound.  They, 
therefore,  that  make  the  seals  and  the  trumpets  to 
signify  both  of  them  an  alaim  for  battle,  as  most 
commentators  have  done,  confound  things  that  are 
distinctly  different. 

With  this  first  trumpet,  the  persecutions  of  the 
Christians  commence.  By  the  terms  "  about  the 
space  of  half  an  hour*''  we  understand,  seven  years 
and  an  half,  something  more  or  less.  From  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  we  leara,  that  there  was  no  persecu- 
tion of  Christians  till  a  little  more  than  seven  years 
and  an  half  after  Christ's  ascension,  when  Herod  laid 
violent  hands  on  James  and  put  him  to  death.  If 
the  contents  of  this  trumpet  relate  to  the  persecutions 
of  Christians,  as  has  been  generally  supposed,  and 
no  doubt  correctly,  then  by  the  terms  "  trees  and 
green  grass^^"*  wt  mnst  understand  Christians.  I  do 
not  find  that  expositors  have  given  any  satisfactory 
account  as  to  whit  we  are  to  understand  by  the  terms 
"  third  part. ''^  Some  have  supposed  that  we  are  to 
understand  by  them,  one  of  the  great  divisions  of 
the  globe,  and  that  the  persecutions  were  to  prevail 
principally  in  one  of  the  three  parts.  But  if  this 
trumpet  embraces  a  period  of  -^rO  years,  this  con- 

^/3 


83 

struclion  cannot  be  correct :  for,  in  the  first  SjTj;: 
years  of  Christianity,  the  persecutions  were  equally 
violent  in  all  the  great  divisions  of  the  globe.  The 
third  part,  therefore,  I  apprehend,  signiiies  numbers 
of  Christians,  and  not  the  place  where  they  were  to 
be  persecuted ;  that  is,  during  the  first  ^^20-  years, 
one  out  of  every  three  Christians  was  to  suffer  severe 
persecution  ;  or,  persecutions  were  to  rage  one  third 
of  the  time,  which  would  amount  to  about  the  same 
thing.  Until  A.  D.  313,  Pagan  Rome  persecuted 
the  Christians. 

The  period  of  time  that  this  trumpet  embraces 
cannot  be  ascertained,  unless  we  can  be  well  satisfied 
as  to  the  commencement  of  the  second  trumpet.  It 
is  more  important  to  know  the  beginning  than  the 
ending  of  a  signal. 

'*  And  the  second  angel  sounded,  and  as  it  were  a 
great  mountain  burning  with  fire,  was  cast  into  the 
sea.  And  the  third  part  of  the  sea  became  blood  : 
and  the  third  part  of  the  creatures  which  were  in  the 
sea,  and  had  life,  died  :  and  the  third  part  of  the  ships 
were  destroyed." 

Some  extraordinary  event  happens  to  the  great 
Roman  empire  :  for  that  the  term  "  ^d-c,"  here 
means  this,  cannot  be  questioned.  By  the  term 
"  mountain^'**  we  understand  a  chief  magistrate, 
either  sole,  or  in  conjunction  with  one  or  two  upon 
an  equal  grade  with  himself. 

We  think  that  we  cannot  be  mistaken  in  fixinjj 
upon  Constantine,  as  being  intended  by  the  great 
burning  mountain.       The  punishment  he  inflicted 


sn 


■i/i 


84 

oil  Pagans,  was  in  proportion  to  what  they  had  in- 
flicted on  Christians.  Or,  if  we  suppose  one  third 
of  the  Roman  subjects  continued  to  be  Pagans,  they 
were  outlawed,  and  became  politically  dead,  as  Chris- 
tians were,  till  his  conversion,  A.  D.  315.  We  can 
assign  no  particular  period  of  time  to  this  trumpet, 
after  its  commencement,  except  from  x\.  D.  313,  to 
A.  D.  392,  when  imperial  Rome  was  no  more. 

"  And  the  third  angel  sounded,  and  there  fell  a 
great  star  from  heaven,  burning  as  it  were  a  lamp : 
and  it  fell  upon  a  third  part  of  the  rivers,  and  upon 
the  fountains  of  waters.  And  the  name  of  the  star 
is  called  Wormwood  :  and  many  men  died  of  the 
waters,  because  they  were  made  bitter." 

Here  we  have  evidently  pointed  out  the  commence- 
ment of  the  bishops  of  Rome.  And  this  confirms 
the  construction  we  have  given  to  the  second  trum- 
pet. The  conversion  of  Constantine,  opened  a  door 
for  the  bishops  of  Rome  to  enter  into  possession  of 
ecclesiastical  supremacy,  and  to  exercise  a  refined 
cruelty  unknown  to  barbarism  itself.  His  first  im- 
portant appearance,  that  is,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  was, 
as  head  of  all  the  clergy  at  the  Synod  of  Nice,  as- 
sembled by  Constantine 's  order,  A.  D.  325.  We 
might  enlarge  here,  but  we  apprehend  it  is  not  neces- 
sary. 

"  And  the  fourth  angel  sounded,  and  the  third 
part  of  the  sun  was  smitten,  and  the  third  part  of  the 
moon,  and  the  third  part  of  the  stars  ;  so  as  the  third 
part  of  them  was  darkened.  And  the  day  shone  not 
for  a  third  part  of  it,  and  the  night  likewise." 


65 

"  And  I  beheld,  and  heard  an  angel  flying  through 
the  midst  of  heaven,  saying,  with  a  loud  voiee,  Wo, 
wo,  wo,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  by  reason  of 
the  other  voices  of  tlie  trumpet  of  the  three  angels, 
which  are  yet  to  sound." 

As  very  learned  commentators  ha\e  united  in 
opinion,  that  the  figurative  language  in  this  trumpet, 
respects  the  final  termination  of  the  Caesars  in  Rome, 
situated  in  Europe,  the  third  great  division  of  the 
globe,  at  that  time  known,  we  have  a  precise  date  for 
it.  The  last  of  the  Caesars  was  Augustulus,  wliose 
feeble  administration  terminated,  A.  D.  476  :  when 
tlie  sun,  the  chief  political  magistrate  ;  the  moon  and 
the  stars,  ecclesiastical  officers,  were  all  in  nearly  a 
total  eclipse :  and  here  the  combined  prophecy  re- 
specting the  united  great  sea,  ends.  This  is  a  re- 
markable aera  in  John's  prophecy,  because  it  will 
enable  us  to  fix  precisely  on  the  cruel  and  tyrannic 
powers  that  will  be  exhibited  in  the  three  trumpets, 
emphatically  denominated  severally  by  the  term 
"  wo."  We  trust,  that  we  shall  make  it  appeal* 
clearly,  that  these  three  wa-trumpets  embrace,  first, 
the  Mahometan  Saracenic  Dynasty  ;  the  second,  the 
Turkish  Mahometan  Dynasties ;  and  the  third,  the 
Dynasty  or  Dynasties  in  Rome,  with  the  ten  kings, 
and  little  horn,  from  and  after  the  year  476. 

Chap.  ix.  1.  "  And  the  fifth  angel  sounded,  and 
I  saw  a  star  fall  from  heaven  unto  the  earth  :  and  to 
him  was  given  the  key  of  the  bottomless  pit.  And 
he  opened  the  bottomless   pit ;  and  there  arose  a 


86 

smoke  out  of  the  pit,  as  the  smoke  of  a  great  furnace  ; 
and  the  sun  and  the  air  were  darkened  by  reason  of 
the  smoke  of  the  pit.  And  there  came  out  of  the 
smoke  locusts  upon  the  earth ;  and  unto  them  was 
given  power,  as  the  scorpions  of  the  earth  have  pow- 
er. And  it  was  commanded  them,  that  they  should 
not  hurt  the  grass  of  the  earth,  neither  any  green 
tiling,  neither  any  tree,  but  only  those  men  which 
have  not  the  seal  of  God  in  their  foreheads.  And  to 
them  it  was  given,  that  they  should  not  kill  them,  but 
that  they  should  be  tormented  five  months  :  and  their 
torment  was  as  the  torment  of  a  scorpion,  when  he 
strikcth  a  man.  And  in  those  days  shall  men  seek 
death,  and  shall  not  find  it ;  and  shall  desire  to  die, 
and  death  shall  flee  from  them.  And  the  shapes  of 
the  locusts  were  like  unto  horses  prepared  unto  battle. 
And  on  their  heads  were,  as  it  were,  crowns  of  gold» 
and  their  faces  were  as  the  faces  of  men,  and  they  had 
hair  as  the  hair  of  women,  and  their  teeth  were  as  the 
teeth  of  lions.  And  they  had  breast-plates  as  it  were 
breast-plates  of  iron,  and  the  sound  of  their  wings 
was  as  the  sound  of  chariots  of  many  horses  running 
to  battle.  And  they  had  tails  like  unto  scorpions :. 
and  there  were  stings  in  their  tails;  and  their  power 
was  to  hurt  men  five  months.  And  they  had  a  king 
over  them,  which  is  the  angel  of  the  bottomless  pit, 
whose  name  in  the  Hebrew  tongue  is  Abaddon,  but 
in  the  Greek  tongue  hath  his  name  ApoUyon.  One 
wo  is  past,  and  behold,  there  come  two  woes  more 
hereafter." 


87 

Though  I  have  met  with  no  expositor  that  has  at- 
tempted to  explain  all  the  figurative  terms  made  use 
of,  and  applied  to  this  power,  yet  some  of  them  are 
so  plainly  descriptive  of  the  rise  of  the  impostor  Ma- 
homet, that  expositors  have  generally  fixed  on  his 
rise,  and  the  Saracenic  Dynasty,  as  being  expressly 
pointed  out  by  the  figurative  language  contained  in 
this  5th  trumpet.  Indeed,  we  find  nothing  in  pro- 
fane histoiy,  after  A.  D.  476,  that  corresponds  at  all 
with  the  descriptions  here  given  us,  except  in  the  his- 
torj-  of  the  rise  of  Mahomet  and  the  Saracenic  Dy- 
nasty. We  find  the  terms  '  five  months,"  twice 
mentioned,  viz.  in  verses  5th  and  10th.  More  than 
one  hundred  years  ago,  a  learned  commentator  on  this 
passage,  thought  that  the  repetition  of  the  terms  "  five 
months,"  were  to  be  taken  doubly,  that  is,  for  ten 
months,  or  300  years  :  but  he  pointed  out  nothing  at 
the  end  of  the  first  "  five  months,"  or  150  years,  nor 
at  tlie  end  of  the  second  "  five  months,"  or  150  years, 
that  would  have  any  tendency  to  induce  us  to  believe 
him  to  be  correct  in  his  opinion. 

Profane  history  plainly  establishes  John's  prophetic 
period  of  fi\  e  months,  or  150  years.  Mahomet,  ac- 
cording to  the  Dyonisian  asra  of  Christ's  birth,  rose 
up  in  622  ;  and  precisely  150  years  afterwards,  in 
772,  Charlemagne  drove  nearly  all  the  Mahometans 
out  of  Europe.  Dan.  xi.  24.  says  of  the  Saracenic 
Dynasty,  "  he  shall  forecast  his  devices  against  the 
strong  holds,  even  for  a  time^''^  that  is,  360  years. — 
Now,  from  the  the  time  of  the  Saracenic  Dynasty's 


88 

taking  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  637,  to  the  Dynasty  of 
Mahmiid,  the  Gaznevide,  which  put  an  end  to  the 
Sai'acenic  Dynasty,  was  precisely  360  years  ;  that  is, 
A.  D.  997.  The  last  of  the  Caliphs,  at  the  head  of 
the  Saracenic  Dynasty,  gave  up  all  his  power  to  Mah- 
mud,  the  Gaznevide. 

Chap.  ix.  13.  "  And  the  sixth  angel  sounded, 
and  I  heard  a  voice  from  the  four  horns  of  the  golden 
altar  which  is  before  God,  saying  to  the  sixth  angel, 
which  had  the  trumpet.  Loose  the  four  angels  which 
are  bound  in  the  great  river  Euphrates.  And  the 
four  angels  were  loosed,  which  were  prepared  for  an 
hour,  and  a  day,  and  a  month,  and  a  year,  for  to  slay 
the  third  part  of  men  ;  and  the  number  of  the  army 
of  the  horsemen  were  two  hundred  thousand  thou- 
sand :  and  I  heard  the  number  of  them.  And  thus 
I  saw  the  horses  in  the  vision,  and  them  that  sat  on 
them,  having  breast-plates  of  fire,  and  of  jacinth,  and 
of  brimstone.  And  the  heads  of  the  horses,  were  as 
the  heads  of  lions,  and  out  of  their  mouths  issued 
fire,  and  smoke,  and  brimstone.  By  these  three  were 
the  third  part  of  men  killed ;  by  the  fire,  and  by 
the  smoke,  and  by  the  brimstone  which  issued  out  of 
their  mouths.  For  their  power  is  in  their  mouths  and 
in  their  tails  :  for  their  tails  were  like  unto  scorpions, 
and  had  heads,  and  with  them  they  do  hurt.  And 
the  rest  of  the  men  w^hich  were  not  killed  by  these 
plagues,  yet  repented  not  of  the  works  of  their  hands 
that  they  should  not  worship  devils,  and  idols  of  gold, 
and  silver,  and  brass,  and  stone,  and  of  wood,  which 


89 

neither  can  see,  nor  hear,  nor  walk  :  neither  repent- 
ed they  of  their  murders,  nor  of  their  sorceries,  nor 
of  their  fornications,  nor  of  their  thefts." 

As  in  the  fifth  trumpet,  so  in  tl\is  sixth  trumpet,  no 
expositor,  that  I  have  met  with,  has  attempted  to 
affix  a  phiin  intelligible  meaning  to  all  the  figurative 
terms  made  use  of:  but  they  have  generally  fixed 
upon  the  Turkish  D}nasty  of  the  Mahometans,  as 
plainly  designated  by  the  symbolical  language  made 
use  of.  And  if  the  second  wo-trumpet  do  not  em- 
brace the  Turkish  Mahometans,  we  certainly  cannot 
find  them  any  where  in  the  prophetic  history  :  and 
yet  of  the  1260  years  of  the  Mahometan  delusion, 
they  unquestionably  embrace  900  years  of  them. — 
We  will  not  perplex  the  common  reader  with  all  the 
historic  facts  ~  that  we  could  produce  respecting  the 
Turkish  Mahometans.  We  will  simply  state,  that 
the  four  angels  that  had  been  bound  in  tlie  great  river 
Euphrates  and  were  set  at  liberty,  succeeded  one  an- 
other,  and  were  not  cotemporary.  When  the  Sara- 
cenic Dynasty  ended,  we  certainly  find  the  first  of  the 
four  angels.  We  therefore  conclude  with  great  cer- 
tainty, that  the  first  angel  must  be  Mahmudthe  Gazne- 
vide,  who  immediately  succeeded  the  Saracenic  Dy- 
nasty, and  commenced  A.  D.  997,  and  ended  1028. 
The  second  angel  in  succession  is  the  Seljukian  Dy- 
nasty ;  commenced  1038,  and  ended  1092.  The 
third  angel  is  Zingis  Khan,  first  emperor  of  the  Mo- 
guls and  Tartars,  commenced  1208,  and  ended  1227. 
The  fourth  angel  is  Tamerlane  ;    commenced  1370, 

N 


90 

and  ended  140G.  Now  it  must  be  confessed,  that 
the  Saracenic  Dynasty  did  not  end  before  A.  D.  997: 
and  as  no  expositors  have  explained  the  terms  "  an 
hour,  a  day,  a  month,  and  a  year,"  otherwise  than  to 
signify  391  years  and  15  days,  we  are  obliged  to  ex- 
amine carefully  what  Mahometan  Dynasties  of  the 
greatest  importance  appeared  after  A.  D.  997.  And 
none  comparable  to  the  four  we  have  mentioned, 
are  to  be  found  in  any  history  of  the  period  of  time, 
from  A.  D.  997  to  1403.  History  establishes  tht 
fact,  that  the  Saracenic  Dynasty  terminated  A.  D. 
997,  and  the  prophetic  history  of  the  5th  trumpet 
ends  here.  The  general  opiuion  of  expositors  is, 
that  the  period  of  the  6th  trumpet  is  391  years  and 
15  days,  which  added  to  997,  carries  us  to  the  year 
1388  and  15  days,  when  Tamerlane  was  sweeping 
with  the  besom  of  destruction  nearly  all  Asia :  and 
about  the  year  1400  he  progressed  westward  to  the 
Mediterranean,  having  desolated  all  Asia.  When 
there,  he  looked  with  a  wishful  eye  to  Europe  ;  but 
he  returned  to  the  East,  and  prepared  a  great  army 
for  the  purpose  of  invading  and  destroying  the  Chi- 
nese. His  death,  in  1403,  put  an  end  to  the  expe- 
dition ;  and  since  that  time,  no  such  destroying  mon- 
sters have  appeared  in  Asia. 

It  is  extremely  improbable,  that  an  hour  means 
precisely  15  natural  days,  it  being  entirely  incompati- 
ble with  the  sabbatical  or  jubilee  calendar,  in  which 
natural  days  are  not  noticed.  And  there  being  no 
other  instance  of  such  extreme  precision  in  prophecy, 
wc  are  necessarily  led  to  see  if  we  cannot  find  out 


91 

another  meaning  that  may  be  affixed  to  the  term 
hour. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  at  the  time  of  writing 
this  prophecy,  and  for  hundreds  of  years  al\erwards, 
it  was  commonly  believed,  that  the  earth  was  the 
centre  of  the  universe  ;  and  that  the  sun  made  a  com- 
plete revolution  round  it  every  day,  progressing  at 
the  rate  of  fifteen  degrees  every  hour.  It  is  now  as- 
certained that  these  ideas  were  incorrect;  and  that  it 
is  the  earth  that  revolves  round  the  sun:  and,  of 
course,  it  requires  15  days  for  the  carlh  lo  pass  over 
15  degrees,  whereas  it  was  supposed,  that  the  sun 
passed  over  them  in  one  hour.  Having  ascertained 
the  exact  number  of  days,  and  the  reckoning  being 
according  to  the  sabbatical  calendar,  in  every  instance, 
these  15  days,  must  intend  15  years :  of  course, ''  an 
tour,  day,  month,  and  year,  must  intend  406  }^ears, 
which  added  to  997,  carries  us  to  A.  D.  1403,  the 
year  Tamerlane  died. 

We  refer  the  reader  to  Gibbon  for  a  history  of 
these  four  destructive  monsters. 

The  idolatrous  worshippers  referred  to,  must  be 
considered  as  idolatrous  Christians  in  Asia ;  for  no 
Mahometan  worships  any  thing  that  is  visible.  And 
at  their  very  first  rise,  tliey  proclaimed  war  against 
all  the  visible  images  of  the  Christians ;  and  Chris- 
tians had  introduced  many  such  into  their  worship  at 
the  rise  of  Mahomet.  A  Mahometan  Mosque  has 
not,  and  never  had,  any  visible  image  in  it.  The 
Mahometan  that  worships  no  image,  and  the  Chris- 


92 

tian  that  worships  an  image,  both  arise  out  of  the 
smoke  of  the  bottomless  pit. 

The  whole  of  the  10th  chapter  is  evidently  a  di- 
gression from  what  John  had  been  treating  of.  It  is 
an  anticipation  of  events  that  were  to  be  long  after 
them  ;  events  that  will  succeed  in  due  order  after  the 
pouring  out  of  the  seventh  vial. 

Chap.  xi.  "  And  there  was  given  me  a  reed  like 
unto  a  rod :  and  the  angel  stood,  saying,  Rise,  and 
measure  the  temple  of  God,  and  the  altar,and  them  that 
worship  therein.  But  the  court  which  is  without  the 
temple  leave  out,  and  measure  it  not ;  for  it  is  given 
unto  the  Gentiles  ;  and  the  holy  City  shall  they  tread 
under  foot  forty-two  months.'' 

This  is  an  important  passage,  as  in  its  connexion, 
it  can  have  reference  but  to  the  Mahometan  power 
only,  designated  by  the  term  "  Gentiles.^''  By  the 
terms  "  Holy  City,*'*  we  understand  the  literal  Jeru- 
salem of  the  Jews :  and  by  forty-two  months,  or 
1260  years,  the  duration  of  the  Mahometan  Dynas- 
ties, and  of  the  Jewish  desolations.  This  great  pe- 
riod of  time  corresponds  precisely  with  Daniel,  who 
ij  explicit  as  to  the  duration  of  the  Mahometan  pow- 
er. It  is  plain  that  John  has  given  us  a  history  of  the 
operations  of  the  Maliometans  for  the  first  766  years, 
for  his  5th  trumpet  embraces  360  years ;  that  is,  the 
whole  period  of  the  Saracenic  Dynasty,  and  406 
years  of  the  Turkish  Dynasties,  are  contained  in  the 
6th  trumpet.  If  we  date  the  commencement  of  the 
Mahometan  power,  not  in  the  year  that  Mahomet  left 
Mecca  ;  thai  is,  A.  D.  622,  according  to  the  vulgar 


93"^ 

sera,  but  A.  D.  630,  according  to  tlie  true  aera,  the 
42  months  will  expire  A.  D.  1890.  After  I  had 
found,  by  the  prophetic  periods  and  the  Chronology 
of  the  Bible,  that  Mahomet  was  to  make  his  appear- 
ance A.  D.  630,  I  was  not  a  little  gratified  to  find  a 
very  ancient  author  asserting  that  this  was  the  year  in 
A\hich  he  did  rise  up.  If  the  vulgar  asra  of  the  rise 
of  Mahomet,  622,  should  be  630,  then  the  present 
year,  1810,  would  be  1818  ;  and  72  years  more  will 
accomplish  the  1260  years  allotted  to  the  Mahometan 
delusion.  And  in  72  years  more  there  will  be  an 
end  to  the  Jewish  desolations. 

Chap.  xi.  3 — 13,  we  have  an  account  of  the  two 
witnesses.  We  will  here  take  for  granted,  that  the 
witnesses  intend  all  that  lived  and  died  in  the  faith  for 
1260  years  from  the  Passion.  The  reason  why  they 
are  denominated  two,  we  take  to  be  this :  they  lived, 
and  died  under  two  distinctly  different  temporal  ty- 
rannical beasts,  viz.  imperial  Rome,  and  the  Eastern 
empire.  That  the  witnesses  lived  under  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  is  unquestionable :  that  they  lived  in 
the  Asiatic  part  of  the  Roman  empire,  is  as  unques- 
tionable. These  witnesses,  therefore,  testified  to  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  during  the  ex- 
istence of  imperial  Rome,  and  to  a  certain  period  of 
the  existence  of  the  Eastern  empire,  if  not  the  whole 
of  it. 

This  account  of  the  two  witnesses  is  apparently  an 
epilogue  to  the  5th  and  6th  trumpets.  It  is  John's 
farewell  address,  as  respects  the  Asiatic  Christians. 
Asia  is  no  longer  to  be  the  seat  of  Christian  heroism, 


Avhen  1260  years  have  expired,  from  the  Passion. — 
The  infidel  historian,  Gibbon,  says,  that  the  seven 
Churches    in    Asia    Minor,    John's    seven   famous 
Churches,  fell  a  final  sacrifice  to  the  Turks,  A.  D. 
1312.     But  John  commences  his  history  after  the 
Pcission,  and,  therefore,  we  must  deduct  the  number 
of  years  that  intervened  between  Christ's  birth  and 
his  passion  ;  and  we  shall  find  that  the  Asiatic  wit- 
nesses had  1260  years.     The  only  question  of  very 
great  importance  respecting  these  witnesses  is,  what 
is  meant  by  the  terms  "  shall  see  their  dead  bodies 
th>ee  days  and  an  half."     And  "  after  three  days  and 
an  half,   the  Spirit  of  Life  from  God  entered  into 
them.''     We  are  expressly  told, "  when  they,  (the 
witnesses,)  shall  have  finished  their  testimony,  the 
beast  that  ascendeth  out  of  the  bottomless  pit,  shall 
make  wi\r  against  them,  and  shall  overcome  them, 
and  kill  them."     No  other  beast  can  be  found,  that 
ascends   out  of  the  bottomless  pit,  but  Mahomet, 
therefore  the  witnesses  must  be  killed  by  a  Mahom- 
etan Dynasty,  and  not  till  G30  years  after  the  beast 
arose  from  the  bottomless  pit.     In  the  middle  of  his 
period  of  1260  years,  the  witnesses  are  killed.     The 
periods  of  the  tiumpets  are  denominated  "  days."-— 
Seven  trumpets,  or  days.,  manifestly  embrace  1260 
years.       Now,  reckoning  in  the  same    way,  three 
days  and  an   half  must  embrace  630  years.     Thus 
long  are  the  dead  bodies   of  the  witnesses  to  be 
trampled    under  foot    by   the   Mahometan   power. 
— And  at  the  end   of  the  period,  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead  bodies  of  the  witnesses,  will  be  a  literal 


95 

resurrection ;  when  there  shall  be  a  great  earthquake, 
by  which  thousands  of  men  shall  be  slain,  to  whom 
belonged  seven  names,  '*  And  the  tenth  part  of  the 
City  fell."  By  the  term  "  C?>y,"  I  understand  the 
great  City  of  wickedness,  commencing  with  God's 
particular  prophecies  respecting  imperial  Babylon ; 
and,  of  course,  I  do  not  apprehend  that  when  the 
tendi  part  of  the  City  fell,  there  were  at  the  same 
time  nine  other  co-existing  parts.  If  wc  may  take 
the  ten  parts  of  the  City  to  be  successional,  we  think, 
at  present,  that  the  tenth  part  must  immediately  suc- 
ceed the  litde  horn  in  Daniel,  and  that  it  will  have 
a  very  short  existence  indeed.  The  contents  of  the 
sixth  vial  may  have  respect  to  the  tenth  and  last  part 
of  the  great  City,  and  represent  to  us  the  kings  of 
the  earth  universally  arrayed  in  battle  against  one 
another.  I  confess,  I  do  lay  more  stress  upon  the 
explanation  which  I  have  given  of  the  ternis  "  three 
days  and  an  half,"  making  them  embrace  630  years, 
than  any  of  the  other  symbolical  terms  made  use 
of  in  this  passage.  The  sixth,  is  the  second  wo 
trumpet ;  and  not  till  after  John  has  given  us  this 
account  of  the  holy  City,  which,  he  says,  must  be 
trodden  under  foot  42  months.  And  of  the  two  wit. 
nesses,  does  he  tell  us,  that  the  second  wo  is  past. 
As  John  gives  us  no  further  history  of  the  Mahome- 
tan Turkish  Dynasty  after  the  sixth  trumpet,  and  yet 
it  was  to  exist  several  hundreds  of  years  afterwards, 
we  suggest  this  reason  for  John's  placing  the  se\  en 
thunders  as  he  has  done;  supposing  that  tliey  are 


96 

the  contents  of  the  seventh  vial,  viz.  the  Turkish 
Dynasty  or  Dynasties  are  to  feel  the  dreadful  effects 
of  the  vengeance  of  the  thunders ;  and  the  contents 
of  the  sixth  vial  lead  us  naturally  to  this  construction. 
In  this  view  we  have  evidently  three  important  chro- 
nological periods.  First,  the  thunders  are  to  com- 
mence A.  D.  1890 — The  Jewish  desolations  termi- 
nate A.  D.  1890 — The  death  of  the  witnesses  termi- 
nates A.  D.  1890 — And  the  little  open  book  must 
have  reference  to  the  state  of  the  Millennium  which 
commences  at  the  end  of  these  periods,  or  not  long 
after.  To  this  idea  we  shall  pay  more  particular  at- 
tention hereafter.  We  are  now  well  informed  by 
history,  that  the  Asiatic  Christians  had  their  1260 
years ;  that  the  Mahometans  took  Jerusalem  A.  D. 
637,  and  have  had  possession  of  it,  except  for  a 
short  period  of  time,  ever  since,  that  is,  1188  years, 
wanting  but  72  years  to  accomplish  the  period  of  42 
months. 

Chap.  xi.  15.  John  will  now  return  to  the  wes- 
ern  world,  and  begin  at  the  poriod  of  time  when  he 
left  it,  that  is,  A.  D.  476.  But  from  this  15th  verse 
to  the  13th  chapter,  we  have  a  very  important  pro- 
logue, embracing  events  that  are  to  take  place  in  very 
different  periods  of  time.  He  seems  plainly  enough 
to  hint  at  some  things  that  were  cotemporary  with 
Christ's  birth,  and  to  some  things  which  will  not 
happen  before  his  second  advent. 

Chap.  xi.  15.  "  And  the  seventh  angel  sounded, 
and  there  were  great  voices  in  heaven,  saying,  the 


97 

kingdoms  of  this  world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of 
our  Lord  and  his  Christ :  and  he  shall  reign  for  ever 
and  ever.  And  the  four  and  twenty  elders  which  sat 
before  God  on  their  thrones,  fell  upon  their  faces  and 
worshipped  God  ;  saying,  We  give  thee  thanks,  O 
Lord  God  Almighty,  which  art,  and  wast,  and  art  to 
come,  because  thou  hast  taken  to  thee  thy  great  pow- 
er, and  hast  reigned.  And  the  nations  were  angry, 
and  thy  wrath  is  come,  and  the  time  of  the  dead,  that 
they  should  be  judged :  and  that  thou  should  give 
reward  to  thy  servants  the  prophets,  and  to  the  saints, 
and  them  that  fear  thy  name,  small  and  great ;  and 
shouldst  destroy  them  that  destroy  the  earth.  And 
the  temple  of  God  was  opened  in  heaven ;  and  there 
was  seen  in  his  temple  the  ark  of  his  testament :  and 
there  were  lightnings,  and  voices,  and  thunderings, 
and  an  earthquake,  and  great  hail." 

This  passage  closes  the  11th  chapter,  and,  we 
think,  as  manifestly  closes  the  Gospel  dispensation 
previous  to  the  millennium  ;  and  that,  if  there  is  to 
be  a  millennium,  it  must  be  after  the  general  resur- 
rection. This  idea,  however,  we  will  not  pursue 
here.  We  have  not  the  vanity  to  think,  that  wc  can 
in  plain  language  set  before  the  reader  all  the  wonder- 
ful descriptions  of  events  and  personages  that  we  find 
from  the  15th  verse  of  die  11th  chapter,  to  the  16t]i 
chapter,  where  we  find  that  the  first  vial  is  poured 
out,  which  we  consider  as  proceeding  from,  and  be- 
ing, the  contents  of  the  seventh  trumpet. 

The  figurative  terms  of  the  1 2th  chapter,  and  the 


98 

collective  bodies  pointed  out  by  them,  require  great 
and  mature  consideration.  We  will  endeavour  to 
apply  the  characteristic  descriptions  as  well  as  we 
can,  and  we  flatter  ourselves,  that  if  we  err,  the  error 
will  have  no  materially  injurious  tendency  in  it. 

First.  By  the  term  "  heaven^''  we  understand  so 
much  and  no  more  of  the  globe,  than  that  which 
comprises  all  those  who  enjoy  the  light  of  the  Gos- 
pel. Heaven  does  not  mean  some  far  distant  and  un- 
known place,  to  the  inhabitants  of  this  world. 

Second.  The  woman  with  child,  and  pained  to  be 
delivered,  and  was  delivered  of  a  man-child,  that 
was  to  rule  all  nations  with  a  rod  of  iron,  and  was 
caught  up  unto  God  and  his  throne,  intends  the 
Christian  Church,  and  especially  the  birth  and  ascen- 
sion of  Christ. 

Thirdly.  The  red  dragon,  having  seven  heads 
and  ten  horns,  and  seven  crowns  on  his  head,  I  con- 
sider as  follows  : — First.  That  the  seven  great  infidel 
monarchies  are  all  represented  here  as  having  been 
croAvned,  and  that  their  Dynasties  are  complete. — 
Secondly.  The  horns,  not  being  represented  here  as 
crowned,  but  as  connected  with  the  seven  crowned 
heads,  we  apprehend  points  out  to  us,  that  the  ten 
horns  were  to  exist  in  future.  None  of  these  de- 
scriptions intend  other  than  visible  powers,  though 
perhaps  invisibly  operated  upon. 

Fourthly.  The  woman's  flying  into  the  wilder- 
ness, where  she  had  a  place  prepared  of  God,  that 
they  should  feed  her  there  1260  days,  or  years,  has 
an  especial  reference  to  the  two  witnesses. 


99 

Fiftlily.  The  wars  in  heaven,  intend  the  exertions 
of  Constantine  against  Pagans,  and  of  Protestants 
against  Ecclesiastical  and  Papal  tyranny ;  which  are 
successful  for  a  time,  but  afterwards,  political  ty- 
ranny, for  a  short  period  of  time,  rages  with  unex- 
ampled fury. 

Sixtlily.  The  woman  who  has  given  unto  her  two 
\vings  of  a  great  eagle,  that  she  might  fly  into  tlic 
wilderness,  into  her  place,  where  she  is  nourished  for 
a  time,  and  times,  and  half  a  time,  from  the  face  of 
the  serpent,  I  apprehend,  comprehends  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  Millennian  state  ; 
and  limits  precisely  the  period  of  its  duration  to 
1260  years.  Here  I  feel  more  confidence  than  usual, 
because  it  appears  to  me,  that  this  woman  must  refer 
us  precisely  to  a  Church  in  that  state.  The  inquisi- 
tive reader  will  undoubtedly  take  the  trouble  to  read 
the  12th  chapter  with  attention  ;  and,  if  he  does,  I  am 
persuaded  that  he  will  conclude,  with  me,  that  they 
who  make  tlie  1000  years  reign  with  Christ  mean 
360,000  years,  have  no  scriptural  data  for  tliis  opi- 
nion. 

Chap.  xiii.  1.  "  And  I  stood  upon  the  sand  of 
the  sea,  and  saw  a  beast  rise  up  out  of  the  sea,  hav- 
ing seven  heads  and  ten  horns,  and  upon  his  honis 
ten  crowns,  and  upon  his  heads  the  name  of  blas- 
phemy. 

2  "  And  the  beast  which  I  saw,  was  like  unto  a 
leopard,  and  his  feet  were  as  the  feet  of  a  bear,  and 
his  mouth  as  the  mouth  of  a  lion  :  and  the  dragon 
gave  him  his  power,  and  his  seal,  and  great  authority. 


100 

3  "  And  I  saw  one  of  his  heads  as  it 'were  wound- 
ed to  death  :  and  his  deadly  wound  was  healed  ;  and 
all  the  world  wondered  after  the  beast. 

4  "  And  they  worshipped  the  dragon  which  gave 
power  unto  the  beast :  and  they  worshipped  the  beast, 
saying,  Who  is  like  unto  the  beast  ?  who  is  able  to 
make  war  with  him  ? 

5  "  And  there  was  given  unto  him  a  mouth, 
speaking  great  things,  and  blasphemies :  and  power 
was  given  unto  him  to  continue  forty  and  two 
months. 

6  "  And  he  opened  his  mouth  in  blasphemy 
against  God,  to  blaspheme  his  name,  and  his  taberna- 
cle, and  them  that  dwell  in  heaven. 

7  "  And  it  was  given  unto  him,  to  make  war  with 
the  saints,  and  to  overcome  them :  and  power  was 
given  him  over  all  kindreds,  and  tongues,  and  na- 
tions. 

8  *'  And  all  that  dwell  upon  the  earth  shall  wor- 
ship him,  whose  names  are  not  written  in  the  book 
of  life,  of  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world. 

9  "  If  any  man  have  an  ear,  let  him  hear. 

10  "  He  that  leadeth  into  captivity,  shall  go  into 
captivity;  he  that  killeth  with  the  sword,  must  be 
killed  with  the  sword.  Here  is  the  patience  and  the 
faith  of  the  saints. 

11  "  And  I  beheld  another  beast  coming  up  out  of 
the  earth  :  and  he  had  two  horns  like  a  lamb,  and  he 
spake  as  a  dragon. 

12  "  And  he  exerciseth  all  the  poorer  of  the  first 


101 

beast  before  him,  and  causeth  the  earth  and  them  that 
dwell  therein,  to  worship  the  first  beast,  whose  deadly 
wound  was  healed. 

13  *'  And  he  doeth  great  wonders,  so  that  he  maketh 
fire  come  down  from  heaven  on  the  earth  in  the  sight 
of  men : 

14  '•  And  deceiveth  them  tliat  dwell  on  the  earth, 
by  means  of  those  miracles  which  he  had  power  to 
do  in  the  sight  of  the  beast :  saying  to  them  that 
dwell  on  the  earth,  that  they  should  make  an  image 
to  the  beast  that  had  the  wound  by  a  sword,  and  did 
live. 

15  '*  And  he  had  power  to  give  life  unto  the 
image  of  the  beast,  that  the  image  of  the  beast 
should  both  speak,  and  cause  that  as  many  as  would 
not  Avorship  the  image  of  the  beast,  should  be  killed. 

16  "■  And  he  caused  all,  both  small  and  great, 
rich  and  poor,  free  and  bond,  to  receive  a  mark  in 
their  right-hand,  or  in  their  foreheads. 

17  "  And  that  no  man  mie:ht  buv  or  sell,  save  he 
that  had  the  mark  or  the  name  of  the  beast,  or  the 
number  of  his  name. 

18  "  Here  is  wisdom:  let  him  that  hath  under- 
standing count  the  number  of  the  beast :  for  it  is  the 

,  number  of  man ;  and  his  number  is  x-  I-  ?•'' 

On  these  descriptions,  supposing  that  they  have  a 
precise  relation  to  tlie  Papal  hierarchy,  authors  have 
wrote  voluminously,  and  have  exhausted  their  inge- 
nuity unsatisfactorily  to  the  world  hitherto. 

1.     The  Greek  word  xk^w;  from  the  time  of  Ire- " 
naeus  to  this  time,  has  been  warmly  contended  for 


102 

by  some,  as  explanatory  of  the  number  of  the  beast, 
and  as  warmly  opposed  by  others.  The  dispute 
here  is  singular ;  as  to  those  who  still  adhere  to  the 
Greek  word.  The  Greek  of  Irenaeus  is  entirely 
lost,  and  we  have  only  Ruffinus'  translation  into  La- 
tin, three  or  four  hundred  years  after  the  death  of 
that  father.  It  is  said  that  Ruffinus  could  scarcely 
write  the  Latin  language  intelligibly.  Be  this  as  it 
may,  the  criticism  depends  entirely  on  the  spelling 
of  the  word.  Now  we  deny  that  the  spelling  of 
the  Greek,  for  the  Latin  word  Latinus,  was  ever 
xaTEuoj.  Polybius  has  inserted,  in  his  history,  one  of 
the  most  ancient  treaties,  that  the  Romans  made  with 
a  foreign  nation,  and  he  writes  the  Latin  word  lati- 
nus in  Greek  xartvo?,  and  these  alphabetical  letters,  as 
numerals,  amount  to  no  more  than  661. 

No  one  can  rationally  suppose,  that  John,  in  writ- 
ing this  very  important  prophecy,  would  have  re- 
course to  the  mere  spelling,  800  yeai's  before,  in 
Greek,  of  the  word  latinus. 

We  apprehend  that  the  prophecy  has  plainly  a 
reference  to  the  following  facts,  which  are  confirmed 
by  history : — 

John  sees  a  beast  arise  out  of  the  sea,  having  seven 
uncrowned  heads,  and  ten  crowned  horns.  He  had 
before  seen  a  beast  with  seven  crowned  heads,  and 
ten  uncrowned  horns ;  from  this  circumstance,  we 
may  infer,  that  John's  prophecy  is  to  have  no  re- 
spect to  the  Roman  Caesai's.  He  had  in  the  fourth 
trumpet,  brought  us  to  the  end  of  the  fifth  Caesarial 
crowned  head,  A.  D.  476.     This  prophecy  is  there- 


103 

fore,  to  have  respect  to  events  subsequent  to  A.  D. 
476  ;  yet  it  has  an  immediate  connexion  with  events 
which  preceded,  and  are  plainly  referred  to.  The 
seven  heads,  are  seven  great  empires ;  because  it  is 
expressly  said,  that  one  of  them  was  killed  with  the 
sword.  Now  this  head  cannot  be  the  great  Roman 
sea ;  for  that  came  to  its  end  neither  in  anger  nor  bat- 
tle. The  eastern  empire  did  not  come  to  an  entire 
end,  till  about  a  thousand  years  after  the  line  of  the 
Caesars  was  for  ever  broken  in  the  western  empire. 
The  wounded  head  of  course,  can  only  have  refer- 
ence to  these ;  for  it  was  killed  with  the  sword. 

The  seven  heads,  therefore,  cannot  be  the  seven  hills, 

or  mounts,  on  which  Rome  was  originally  built. 

The  prophet  says,  chap.  xvii.  9.  the  seven  heads 
are  seven  mountains,  on  which  the  woman  sitteth. 
The  mountains,  and  the  seven  heads,  are  one  and 
the  same  thing ;  and  are  not  literally  seven  hills :  be- 
cause it  would  be  absurd  to  say,  that  one  of  these 
was  killed  with  the  sword. 

Between  the  years  476  and  1 500,  the  papal  pow- 
er rose  to  its  zenith,  and  after  the  reformation,  gra- 
dually declined  till  it  became  extinct,  1809. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  give  an  explanation  of 
the  beast  with  two  horns  like  a  lamb ;  and  as  a 
ground- work  of  it,  we  shall  have  recourse  to  the  ram 
with  two  horns,  the  smallest  of  which  the  prophet 
gives  us  to  Understand,  signifies  the  king  of  Media  ; 
and  the  largest,  the  king  of  Persia.  The  ram  is  em- 
blematical of  the   Medo-persian  empire  ;  which  Da- 


104 

niel  in  his  explanation  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  terrible 
image  calls  "  another  kingdom.''^  Two  horns,  there- 
fore, in  one  head,  do  not  intend  two  distinct  king- 
doms :  but  two  distinct  Dynasties  in  the  same  em- 
pire. The  change  of  a  Dynasty  does  not  affect 
the  unity  of  the  head ;  therefore  they  who  contend 
for  seven  different  Dynasties,  in  the  pagan  Roman 
head,  contend  for  something,  though  it  is  not  true, 
yet  if  it  were,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  Em- 
pires, and  not  Dynasties,  are  more  particularly  the 
objects  of  prophecy ;  however,  in  the  cases  of  the 
Medo-persian  empire,  of  Rome  popular  and  Rome 
imperial,  and  of  the  western  empire,  the  prophet 
marks  the  Dynasties. 

The  western  empire  has  ascribed  to  it  distinctly, 
three  Dynasties,  First.  The  imperial  line,  which 
ended  A.  D.  476.  This  Dynasty,  professedly, 
was  Christian ;  it  was  a  mere  civil  power,  not  as- 
suming to  exercise  the  duties  and  powers  of  a  Mi- 
nister of  the  Gospel.  But  the  beast  with  two  horns 
like  a  lamb,  has  two  Dynasties  who,  whatever  other 
powers  they  exercised,  pretended  to  be  Officers 
in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  horn  here  sig- 
nifying power  and  authority,  and  the  lamb,  having 
respect  to  the  lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world  ;  the  Dynasties  must  have  been  pre- 
tended Christian  Officers,  that  is,  ministerial  Offi- 
cers in  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  Gothic  aiid 
Vandalic  irruptions  into,  and  possession  of  Italy, 
for  a  short  time,  make  no  part  of  the  tiirce  Dynas- 


105 

ties.  The  ric^dly  wound  which  they  inflicted  was  not 
healed  much  short  of  200  years  after. the  event — ..ot 
till  tlie  aristocratic  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  commenc- 
ed :  the  precise  time  of  which  cannot  be  ascertained. 
It,  howcN  er,  terminated  A.  D.  106G,  when  the  other 
horn  or  Dynasty  commenced. 

/  It  has  been  a  qu^^stion,  whether  the  ten  crowned 
horns  rose  up  in  the  interval  between  the  termination 
of  the  Dynasty  of  the  Cssars,  and  the  rising  up  of 
one  of  tlie  ecclesiastical  horns.  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
and  several  other  eminent  expositors,  have  found  ten 
horns  among  the  barbarous  nations  who  broke  into 
Italy  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  We  think  the 
idea  is  incon-ect,  though  of  no  great  consequence. 

As  to  the  beast  witli  seven  uncrowned  heads  and 
ten  crowned  honis,  Faber  reckons  them  as  follows  : 
After  saying,  that  "  the  beast  then  is,  the  secular  Ro- 
man Empire — his  seven  heads,  (the  last  being  his 
double  or  septimo  octave  head,)  are,  1.  Kings — 2. 
Consuls — 3.  Dictators — 4.  Decemvirs — 5.  Military 
Tribunes — 6.  Augustan  Emperors — 7.  8.  Cailo- 
vingian  Patricio  Emperors.  His  ten  horns  are,  1. 
The  kingdom  of  the  Huns.  2.  That  of  the  Ostro- 
goths. 3.  That  of  the  Visigoths.  4.  That  of  the 
Franks.  5.  That  of  the  Vandals.  6.  That  of  the 
Sueves  and  Alans.  7.  That  of  the  Burgundians. 
8.  That  of  the  Heruli,  Rugii,  and  Scyrri,  and  other 
tribes  that  composed  the  kingdom  of  Odoacer  ia 
Italy.  9.  That  of  the  Saxons.  10.  That  of  the 
Lombards.     His  little  horn  which  grew  up  among 

p 


106 

his  ten  horns,  and  which  was  very  different  from  them 
all,  is  the  ecclesiastical  kingdom  of  the  Pope  ;  which, 
small  as  it  originally  was,  afterwards  became  a  great 
ecclesiastical  empire.  His  three  primary  horns  that 
were  plucked  up  before  the  Papal  little  horn,  are,  1. 
The  kingdom  of  the  Heruli.  2.  That  of  the  Ostro- 
goths.    And  3.  That  of  the  Lombards." 

All  this,  we  are  persuaded,  is  the  mere  work  c£ 
imagination ;  and  that  the  language  of  prophecy- 
does  not  suggest  these  ideas.  The  express  words 
of  Daniel,  chap.  vii.  24,  are  pointedly  contradicted. 
**  And  the  ten  horns  out  of  this  kingdom,  are  tea 
kings,  (kingdoms,)  that  shall  arise.  And  another 
shall  arise  after  them,  and  he  shall  be  diverse  from  the 
first:  and  he  shall  subdue  three  kings."  If  the  lit- 
tle horn  subdues  three  kings,  they  could  not  be  sub- 
dued by  him  before  his  existence.  The  ten  horns 
mean  ten  kingdoms,  that  do  not  grow  out  of  the 
-head  of  the  beast,  but  out  of  this  kingdom  ;  that  is, 
out  of  the  Western  empire.  Now,  the  barbarous 
nations  that  established  themselves  in  Italy  for  a 
time,  did  not  arise  out  of  the  Western  empire. 

We  will  now  exhibit  ten  durable  kingdoms  that 
did  arise  out  of  the  Western  empire  after  the  Papal 
hierarchy  had  become  powerful.  We  shall  make  use 
of  Hcnault's  abridged  chronological  history  of 
France,  commencing  with  Clovis,  A.  D.  481,  and 
brought  down  to  the  death  of  Louis  the  XIV.  which 
is  acknowledged  to  be  a  work  of  great  merit ;  show- 
ing, from  year  to  year,  the  rise  of  kingdoms  in  the 


107 

Western  cinpire  ;  and  whut  kings  were  contempora- 
ry with  the  kings  of  France. 

From  Clovis  to  Charlemagne,  A.  D.  768,  no  ten 
kingdoms  of  any  stability  appear  in  Europe.  In 
this  pcritxl  France  is  the  most  prominent. 

1.  France. 

2.  Britain.  Ecbert  put  an  end  to  the  heptarchy, 
A.  D.  828. 

3.  Venice  has  an  earlier  date.  Expositors  allow> 
that  the  prophets  denominate  republics,  kingdoms. 

4.  Spain.  Alphonso  I.  was  king  in  Spain  A.  D. 
757. 

5.  Sweden.  Contemporary  kings  are  noticed  it. 
Sweden,  A.  D.  816. 

6.  Poland  appears  A.  D.  550,  but  was  not  monar- 
chical till  A.  D.  700. 

7.  The  empire  of  Charlemagne  ended  A.  D.  987> 
and  the  title  of  emperor  passed  to  Germany, 

8.  Hungary  was  erected  into  a  kingdom  by  tho 
Pope,  A.  D.  997. 

9.  Denmark.     Sometime  before  A.  D.  980. 

10.  Bohemia,  997. 

Naples,  Portugal,  Prussia,  and  Holland,  arose  out 
of  the  foregoing  kingdoms,  and  are  of  a  later  date, 
and  not  of  the  ten  original  kingdoms. 

The  first  race  of  French  kings  commenced  with 
Clovis,  and  ended  with  Childeric,  A.  D.  7-0. 

The  second  race  or  Dynasty  commenced  with  Pe- 
pin, and  ended  with  Louis  V.  987. 

The  third  race  or  Dynasty  commenced  with  Hugh 


108 

Capet,  and  ended  with  Louis  XVI.  January  21, 
1793. 

The  new  Dynasty  in  France  is  not  the  fourth 
French  Dynasty,  because  he  is  not  of  the  ten  horns, 
but  of  the  seven  heads.  He  has  plucked  up  by  the 
roots,  the  third  Dynasty  of  the  Western  empire,  the 
second  horn  of  the  two-homed  beast,  the  Papal  mo- 
narchical horn.  Except  Britain,  there  is  not  one  of 
the  original  ten  horns,  not  plucked  up  by  the  roots, 
that  are  not  indebted  to  his  forbearance  for  their 
crowns.  Histoiy  points  out  no  three  of  ten  king- 
doms that  were  ever  plucked  up  by  the  roots  by  the 
Papal  power.  The  new  Dynasty  in  France  has  not 
only  plucked  up  three  by  the  roots,  but  it  has  done 
•much  more ;  nine  of  the  original  ten  horns  are  either 
destroyed,  or  dependant  on  his  good  will  and  plea- 
sure for  the  diminished  and  fading  crowns  they  pos- 
sess, merely  as  tenants  at  will. 

We  might,  therefore,  argue  here,  that  the  Papal 
power  is  not,  and  that  the  new  Dynasty  in  France 
also  is  not,  the  little  horn  described  in  the  7th  chap- 
ter of  Daniel.  But  the  prophet  himself  enables  us 
satisfactorily  to  solve  this  difficulty  ;  and  the  solution 
clearly  points  out,  that  the  new  Dynasty  which  ori- 
ginated in  France,  is  precisely  the  little  horn  in  that 
7th  chapter. 

lian.  viii.  6.  "  And  he,  (that  is,  the  he-goat,) 
came  to  the  ram  that  had  two  horns,  which  I  had 
seen  standing  before  the  river,  and  ran  unto  him 
in  the  fury  of  his  power.  And  I  saw  him  come 
close  unto  the  ram,  and  he  was  moved  with  choler 


109 

against  him :  and  smote  the  ram,  and  brake  his 
two  horns."  Now  these  two  horns,  unquestionably^ 
mean  two  Dynasties  ;  indeed  the  prophet  tells  us  so. 
One  of  these  Dynasties  had  ceased  to  exist  200  years 
before  the  he-goat  came  to  the  ram,  in  the  fury  of 
his  power  ;  but  the  prophet  holds  clearly  up  to  our 
view,  that  what  was  once  in  the  head  of  the  ram, 
was  still  to  be  considered  as  in  the  head  of  the  ram, 
2C0  years  after  one  of  the  horns  had  ceased  to  exist. 
We  now  say,  that  there  were  three  horns,  or 
Dynasties  in  the  French  kingdom  before  Napoleon ; 
and  that  these  three  have  been  plucked  up  by  the 
roots  ;  but  we  do  not  fix  upon  these  three  as  having 
been  destroyed  by  Napoleon,  for  they  were  destroy- 
ed at  the  death  of  Louis  XVI.  in  which  atrocious 
act  he  had  no  concern,  at  least  I  have  never  heard 
that  he  had.  The  little  horn  of  Daniel  and  John's 
eighth  beast,  which  was,  and  is  not,  and  is  of  the 
seven,  and  goeth  into  perdition,  intend  the  same  beast. 
John  writes  as  if  he  were  present  when  the  events 
happened  which  he  records,  and  not  at  all  as  having 
any  regard  to  the  time  in  which  he  lived.  We  there- 
fore must  conclude,  that  he  represents  himself 
as  present  at  a  time  posterior  to  the  end  of  the 
western  Caesars,  A.  D.  476.  The  western  beast 
has  plainly  three  Dynasties,  those  of  the  Cassars, 
who  were  wounded  to  death  with  a  sword.  And 
of  the  beast  with  two  horns  like  a  lamb,  which  two 
horns,  according  to  Daniel,  intend  two  Dynasties. 
By  destroying  the  papal  power,  Napoleon  has   de- 


110 

iifmyed  the  three  Dynasties ;  and  thus  we  have  a 
clear  explanation  of  the  words,  "  which  was,  and  is 
not,  and  yet  is,**  referring  us  to  the  chasm  between 
the  extinction  of  the  Caesars,  and  the  rising  up  of 
one  of  the  lamb- like  horns  of  the  beast :  and  also 
what  is  meant  by  the  words,  ^^Jive  are  fallen;'''  the 
great  Roman  Empire  was  the  fourth  head  of  the 
dragon ;  and  the  western  Cassars,  the  fifth  head. 
When  they  ceased  to  ht,Jive  had  fallen. 

(First  Horn.  J  The  aristocratic  government  of 
tlie  two  horned  beast,  which  was  his  first  and  small- 
est horn,  is  thus  described  Rev.  xiii.  12 — 15. — • 
*'  And  he  exerciseth  all  the  power  of  the  first  beast 
before  him,  and  causeth  the  earth,  and  them  which 
dwell  therein,  to  worship  the  first  beast,  whose  dead- 
ly wound  was  healed :  and  he  doeth  great  wonders, 
so  that  he  maketh  fire  come  down  from  heaven  on 
the  earth,  in  the  sight  of  men  :  and  deceiveth  them 
that  dwell  on  the  earth,  by  the  means  of  those  mira* 
cles,  which  he  had  power  to  do  in  the  sight  of  the 
beast :  saying  to  them  that  dwelleth  on  the  earth, 
that  they  should  make  an  image  to  the  beast,  which 
had  the  wound  by  the  sword,  and  did  live.  And 
he  had  power  to  give  life  unto  the  image  of  the 
beast,  that  the  image  of  the  beast  should  both  speak, 
fcc." 

(Second  Horn.)  "  And  cause  that  as  many  a& 
would  not  worship  the  image  of  the  beast,  should 
be  killed.  And  he  caused  all,  both  small  and  great, 
rich  and  poor,  free  and  bond,  to  receive  a  mark 
in  their  right  hand,  or  in  their  foreheads :  and  that  no 


ill 

man  should  buy  or  sell,  save  he  that  had  the  mark^ 
or  the  name  of  the  beast,  or  the  number  of  his  name. 
Here  is  wisdom  :  let  him  that  hath  understanding 
count  the  number  of  the  beast :  for  it  is  the  number 
of  a  man;  and  his  number  is  six  hundred  three 
score  and  six."  The  Greek  initials,  and  numeral 
letters  are  x-  ?■  ? — translated  666.  These  Greek  let- 
ters I  consider  as  the  cypher  of  the  beast. 

The  first  horn  or  D}- nasty  of  the  beast.  It  is  said 
of  the  first  horn,  or  Dynasty,  that  he  exerciseth  aH 
the  power  of  the  first,  before  him:  that  is,  of  that 
Dynasty  which  preceded,  or  was  prior  to  his  exist- 
ence. If  this  be  a  correct  explanation  of  the  words, 
*'  before  kim,'^  we  may  here  have  a  clue  to  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  "  before  whom  three  fell." 
Dan.  vii.  20.  "  And  he  doeth  great  wonders."  "  He 
maketh  fire  come  down.''  "  He  deceiveth."  "  He 
has  power  to  do."  "  He  says  that  they  shou'd  make 
an  image."  '*  He  had  power  to  give  life  to  tlie 
image." 

The  pronoun,  He,  stands  for  a  collective  noun  j 
and  must  stand  for  the  whole  Dynasty ;  that  which 
preceded  the  image  of  the  beast,  or  the  monarchi- 
cal Popes.  This  first  horn  embraces  the  Romish 
regular  and  secular  clergy.  The  first  of  these  class- 
es comprehends  all  the  various  monastic  orders. 
The  second  comprehends  the  whole  body  of  paro- 
chial clergy.  These  two  ecclesiastical  bodies,  are 
they  who  say,  that  they  should  make  an  image,  &c. 

Mosheim  says,  that  "  the  imperious  j)ontiff3,  al- 
ways fond  of  exerUng  their  authority,  exempted,  by 


112 

degrees,  the  monastic  orders  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  bishops.  The  monks,  in  return  for  this  impor- 
tant service,  devoted  themselves  wholly  to  advance 
the  interests,  and  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  the  bi- 
shop of  Rome.  They  made  his  cause  their  own,  and 
represented  him  as  a  sort  of  a  god  to  the  ignorant 
multitude,  over  whom  they  had  gained  a  prodigious 
ascendency  by  the  notion  that  generally  prevailed  of 
the  sanctity  of  the  monastic  order.  The  monastic 
orders  and  religious  societies,  have  always  been  con- 
sidered, by  the  bishops  of  Rome,  as  the  principal 
support  of  their  authority  and  dominion.  It  is  cliief- 
ly  by  them  that  they  rule  the  Church,  maintain  their 
influence  on  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  augment 
the  number  of  their  votaries.  The  power  of  the 
Dominicans  and  Franciscans  greatly  surpassed  that 
of  the  other  orders,  and  rendered  them  singularly- 
conspicuous  in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  During  three 
centuries,  these  two  fraternities  governed,  with  an 
almost  universal  and  absolute  sway,  both  Church 
and  State  ;  filled  the  most  eminent  posts  in  ecclesi- 
astical and  civil  government ;  taught  in  the  universi- 
ties and  Churches  with  an  authority  before  which  all 
opposition  was  silent ;  and  maintained  the  pretended 
majesty  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  against  kings,  princes, 
bishops,  and  heretics,  with  incredible  ardour  and  suc- 
cess. The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  were,  be- 
fore the  reformation,  what  the  Jesuits  have  been 
since — the  very  soul  of  the  hierarchy,  the  engines  of 
the  state,  the  secret  springs  of  the  motions  of  the 
one  and  the  other,  and  the  authors  of  evert-  great  and 


113 

important  event  both  in  the  religious  and  political 
world.      While  the  pontiffs  accumulated  upon  the 
mendicants  the  most  honourable  distinctions,  and  tlie 
most  valuable  pri\'ilcges  which  they  had  to  bestow, 
they  exposed  them  still  more  to  the  envy  and  hatred 
of  the  rest  of  the  clergy  :  and  this  hatred  was  con- 
siderably increased  by  the  audacious  arrogance  that 
discovered  itself  every  where  in  the  conduct  of  these 
supercilious  orders.     They  had  the  presumption  to 
dechu-e  publicly,  that  they  had  a  divine  impulse  and 
commission  to  illustrate  and  maintain  tlie  religion  of 
Jesus.     They  treated  with  the  utmost  insolence  and 
contempt,    all    the    different    ranks    and  orders    of 
the  priesthood.      They  affirmed,  without  a  blush, 
diat  the  true  method  of  obtaining  salvation  was  re- 
vealed to  them  alone  ;  proclaimed,  with  ostentation, 
the  superior  efficacy  and  virtue  of  their  indulgences ; 
and  vaunted,  beyond  measure,  their  interests  at  the 
court  of  heaven,  and  their  familiar  connexions  with 
the  Supreme  Being,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  saints 
in  glory.     By  these  impious  wiles,  they  so  deluded 
and  captivated  the  miserable  and  blinded  multitude, 
that  they  would  not  intrust  any  others  but  the  men- 
dicants with  the  care  of  their  souls,  their  spiritual 
and  eternal  concerns.     Thus  it  appears,  that  the  mo- 
nastic orders  constituted  a  well-organized  body,  go- 
verned by  their  own  laws,  exempt  from  episcopal 
jurisdiction,  subject  to  their  respective  generals  or 
superiors,  but  paying  at  the  same  time  an  implicit 
obedience  to  the  Roman  pontiff."     In  short,  we  haAe 


^J1 


114 

here  a  clear  view  of  an  aristocratic  ecclesiastical  horn 
©r  Dynasty. 

The  second  horn  or  Dynasty  of  the  beast  appear- 
ed when  the  Pope  became  a  sole  monarch,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes ;  when  the  monastic  orders  said 
that  they  should  make  an  image  to  the  beast.  The 
characteristic  descriptions  of  the  image  of  the  beast, 
have  been  so  generally  and  correctly  in  part,  not  in  full, 
applied  to  the  monarchical  Popes,  that  we  wuU  only 
make  remarks  on  two  or  three  of  them,  after  we 
have  pointed  out  the  precise  time  when  the  image  of 
the  beast  made  his  appearance  :  and  we  are  persuad- 
ed, that  it  must  be  evident,  that  the  number,  or  cy- 
pher of  the  beast  will  lead  us  to  the  very  year  when 
the  image  of  the  beast  rose  up.  There  seems  to 
have  been  something  very  fascinating  in  three  sixes. 
They  have  rung  on  the  changes  from  Irenseus  to  Fa- 
ber,  without  having  afforded  any  clue  to  find  out 
who  is  the  real  character  intended.  By  the  number 
or  cypher  of  the  beast,  we  apprehend,  that  two  dis- 
tinct things  are  pointed  out.  "  And  his  7iumber  is, 
X'  ?•  f."  These  Greek  initials,  may  be  the  initials  of 
words  ;  that  is,  of  ;^?t(rToj,  |oXw,  <rr«i;fo;, — in  English, 
Christ,  Wood,  Cross ;  which  plainly  intimates  that 
the  power  will  make  an  idolatrous  use  of  the 
Cross.  And  taking  those  Greek  initials  as  numerals, 
the  sum  of  them  is  unquestionably  1066  ;  directing 
us  to  the  year  itself  when  the  idolatrous  power  rose 
up. 

The  above  cypher  leads  us  precisely  to  Pope  Ur- 
ban II. 


lis 

Henault,  in  his  abridged  chronological  history  of 
France,  says,  "  The  first  cmsade  was  resolved  on 
in  the  same  council  of  Clermont,  A.  D.  1099,  un*- 
der  the  pontificate  of  Urban  II.  Until  this  time  the 
bishops  preceded  the  cardinals.  It  was  in  tliis  coun- 
cil, that,  for  the  first  time,  the  name  of  Papa,  in 
English,  Pope,  was  given  to  the  chief  of  the  Church, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  bishops,  who  had  the  same 
before." 

Godfroi  Bouillion  commanded  the  crusade,  and 
was  made  king  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  1099.  As  John 
undoubtedly  reckons  from  the  resurrection,  53  years 
must  be  deducted,  and  the  remainder  will  be  1066. 
The  idolatry  of  the  cross  at  this  time  was  carried  to 
an  incredible  height.  Crucifixes  became  vocal,  and 
uttered  speeches  to  the  astonished  armies  that  were 
denominated  cross-bearers.  The  abomination  that 
has  made  desolate,  was  set  up  in  Jerusalem  precisely 
1066  years  after  the  resurrection  of  our  Saviour. — 
More  adoration  was  paid  to  a  cross  made  with  hands, 
than  to  him  who  died  on  the  cross. 

The  image  of  the  beast  is  to  cause,  *'  that  no  man 
might  buy  or  sell,  save  he  that  hath  the  mark  or  the 
name  of  the  beast,  or  the  number,  (or  cypher,)  of 
the  beast." 

Latinus  cannot  be  this  beast.  The  name  of  the 
language  of  the  beast  is  not  mentioned  by  the  pro- 
phet. If  Latin  was  the  mother  tongue  of  Latinus, 
and  his  subjects  were  called  Latinists,  of  which  how- 
ever we  have  no  evidence,  yet  the  Romans  v/ere  never 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  Latinists. 


116 

We  do  not  find  that  the  term  Papist  was  made 
use  of  at  all  so  long  as  the  bishops  were  called  Papa. 
The  term  came  into  use  after  the  year  1066.  He 
that  is  a  Papist  has  plainly  the  name  of  the  image  of 
the  beast.  The  very  name  points  out  to  whom  the 
bearer  of  it  belongs.  The  Papists  have  interdicted 
buying  and  selling :  they  do  make  the  sign  of  the 
cross  in  the  forehead.  Upon  all  these  considerations, 
we  are  persuaded,  that  the  image  of  the  beast  com- 
menced A.  D.  1066,  and  that  he  is  the  type  of  the 
Western  Cassars. 

We  are  sensible  that  the  Dominicans  and  Francis- 
cans, as  orders,  did  not  appear  till  the  beginning  of 
the  thirteenth  century.  But  there  were  monastic 
orders  previous  to  A.  D.  1066 ;  and  not  only  the 
regular,  but  the  secular  ecclesiastics,  were  so  devot- 
ed to  the  Pope  as  to  give  him  life,  and  speech,  and 
the  power  of  killing. 

From  and  after  the  year  800,  the  Roman  see  was 
guilty  of  the  blackest  crimes  openly  and  notoriously. 
The  short  Dynasty  of  Charlemagne  dwindles  almost 
to  nothing,  when  compared  with  the  Papal  Dynasty 
from  A.  D.  1066,  almost  to  A.  D.  1809. 

The  14th  and  15th  chapters,  abound  with  a  great 
variety  of  characteristic  descriptions,  but  as  we  sup- 
pose that  we  may  pass  over  them,  without  injuring 
our  present  inquiry,  we  will  next  begin  with  the  16th 
chapter. 

1  "  And  I  heard  a  great  ^oice  out  of  the  temple, 
saying  to  the  seven  angels,  go  your  ways,  and  pour 
out  the  vials  of  the  ^ATath  of  God  upon  the  earth. 


117 

2  "  And  the  first  went  and  poured  out  his  vial 
upon  the  earth  ;  and  there  fell  a  noisome  and  griev- 
ous sore  upon  the  men  which  had  the  mark  of  the 
beast,  and  upon  them  wliich  worshipped  his  image. 

3  "  And  the  second  angel  poured  out  his  vial 
upon  the  sea,  and  it  became  as  the  blood  of  a  dead 
man  ;    and  every  living  soul  died  in  the  sea. 

4 — 7  *'  And  die  third  angel  poured  out  his  vial 
upon  the  rivers  and  fountains  of  waters ;  and  the^ 
became  blood.  And  I  heard  the  angel  of  the  water 
say,  thou  art  righteous,  O  Lord,  which  art,  ajid  wast, 
and  shalt  be,  because  thou  hast  judged  thus  :  for 
they  have  shed  the  blood  of  saints,  and  prophets,  and 
thou  hast  given  diem  blood  to  drink ;  for  they  are 
worthy.  And  I  heard  another  out  of  the  altai'  say, 
even  so,  Lord  God  Almighty,  true  and  righteous  are 
thy  judgments. 

8,  9  "  And  the  fourth  angel  poured  out  his' 
vial  upon  die  sun ;  and  power  was  given  unto  him 
to  scorch  men  with  fire.  And  men  were  scorched 
\vith  great  heat,  and  blasphemed  the  name  of  God, 
who  hath  power  over  these  plagues ;  and  tliey  re- 
pented not  to  give  him  glory. 

10,  1 1  "  And  the  fifth  angel  poured  out  his  vial 
upon  the  seat  of  the  beast;  and  his  kingdom  was 
full  of  darkness ;  and  they  gnawed  their  tongues  for 
pain  :  And  blasphemed  the  God  of  heaven,  because 
of  their  pains  and  their  sores,  and  repented  not  of 
their  deeds. 

12 — 16  "  And  the  sixdi  angel  poured  out  his 
vial  upon  the  great  river  Euplirates ;  and  the  water 


118 

thereof  was  dried  up,  that  the  way  of  the  kings  of 
the  east  might  be  prepared.  And  I  saw  three  un- 
clean spirits  like  frogs  come  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  dragon,  and  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  beast,  and 
out  of  the  mouth  of  the  false  prophet.  For  they 
are  the  spirits  of  devils,  working  miracles,  which  ga 
forth  unto  the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  whole 
world,  to  gather  them  to  the  battle  of  the  great  day 
of  God  Almighty.  Behold,  I  come  as  a  thief.  Bless- 
ed is  he  that  watcheth,  and  keepeth  his  garments,  lest 
he  walk  naked,  and  they  see  his  shame.  And  he 
gathered  them  together  into  a  place  called  in  the  He- 
brew tongue  Armageddon. 

17 — ^21  "  And  the  seventh  angel  poured  out  his 
vial  into  the  air ;  and  there  came  a  great  voice  out 
of  the  temple  of  heaven,  from  the  throne,  saying.  It 
is  done.  And  there  were  voices,  and  thunders,  and 
lightnings ;  and  there  was  a  great  earthquake,  such 
as  was  not  since  men  were  upon  the  earth,  so  migh- 
ty an  earthquake,  and  so  great.  And  the  great  city 
was  divided  into  three  parts,  and  the  cities  of  the 
nation  fell :  and  great  Babylon  came  into  remem- 
brance before  God  to  give  unto  her  the  cup  of  the 
wine  of  the  fierceness  of  his  wrath.  And  every  island 
fled  away,  and  the  mountains  were  not  found.  And 
there  fell  upon  men  a  great  hail  out  of  heaven,  every 
stone  about  the  weight  of  a  talent :  and  men  blas- 
phemed God  because  of  the  plague  of  the  hail,  for 
the  plague  thereof  was  exceeding  great." 

I  am  far  from  thinking  that  we  can  ascertain  pre- 
cisely, the  characteristic  descriptions  following  the 


119 

pouring  out  of  the  vials.  The}-  arc  short,  and  very  ge- 
neral :  the  vials  seem  to  follow  one  another  in  quick 
succession.  If  the  explanation  given  of  the  second 
Iamb- like  horn  be  correct,  \vc  may  be  sure  that  the 
first  vial  was  not  poured  out,  till  after  A.  D.  1099  ; 
which  year  synchronizes  with  1066,  from  the  pas- 
sion; for  the  judgment  is  inflicted  on  those  who 
have  the  mark  of  the  beast,  and  on  those  who  wor- 
ship his  image.  We  have  said  before,  that  the  trum- 
pets embrace  1260  years,  and  the  vials  630  years : 
and  of  course,  each  vial,  upon  an  average,  admitting 
the  seventh,  embraces  105  years ;  But  we  doubt  not 
but  that  some  of  the  vials  have  a  longer  period  thaii 
others;  because  this  is  evidently  the  case  with  the 
trumpets. 

We  will  merely  suggest,  not  being  confident  that 
we  are  correct,  that  by  the  terms  "  noisome  and 
grievous  sore,"  the  characteristic  descriptions  of  the 
first  vial,  we  are  to  understand  the  stern  opposition 
made  by  holy  men,  against  papistical  dogmatism 
and  superstition,  in  the  12th  and  13th  centuries. — 
The  doctrines  advocated  by  these  holy  men,  were 
noisome  and  grievous  sores  to  those  who  had  the 
mark  of  the  beast,  and  who  worshipped  his  image. 
The  first  opposed  strenuously,  and  their  numbers 
^vere  \eiy  great,  the  real  presence  of  the  body,  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.     This  was  a  ericA- 

o 

ous  sore  to  the  worshippers  of  the  beast.  See  Mos- 
heim's  11th  and  12th  centuries.  We  apprehend, 
that  the  judgment  being  inflicted  particularly  on  the 
worshippers  of  the  beast  and  his  image,  implies  as 


120 

mucli  as  that  there  were  some  that  did  not  worship 
liim. 

The  characteristic  descriptions  of  the  second  vial 
iU'C  less  easy  of  sokition,  and  the  explanation  depends 
principally,  if  not  entirely,  upon  the  meaning  we  affix 
to  the  term  "  sea.'^  If  this  term  embraces  the  great 
undivided  Roman  empire,  as  we  apprehend  it  does, 
then  we  may  look  either  to  the  Eastern  or  Western 
-empire  for  historic  events  corresponding  with  the 
simple  description,  "  Every  living  soul  died  in  the 
sea."  We  therefore  fix  upon  the  destruction  of  the 
seven  famous  Churches  in  Asia  by  the  Mahometans, 
when  every  Christian  became  politicLiliy  dead.  Wc 
might  carry  the  idea  still  further,  and  say,  tliat  the 
papistical  power  in  the  West,  at  the  very  same  pe  • 
riod  of  time,  had  become  so  predominant,  that  every 
sincere  Christian  became  politically  dead. 

The  characteristic  descriptions  of  the  third  vial  are, 
that  the  rivers  and  fountains  of  waters  became  blood. 
Here  is  a  plain  reference  to  the  third  trumpet,  the 
contents  of  which  fell  upon  the  third  part  of  the  ri- 
vers and  fountains  of  waters.  The  star  was  oalled 
Wormwood :  and  tlie  waters  became  wormwood ; 
and  many  died  of  the  waters,  because  they  were 
made  bitter.  We  apprehend,  this  third  vial  may 
have  an  especial  reference  to  the  reformation,  when, 
in  many  places  and  kingdoms,  the  Papists  became 
politically  dead. 

The  characteristic  descriptions  of  the  fourth  vial, 
are  very  abstruse.  We  can  only  suggest,  that  by  the 
term  "  ^«/2,"  it  is  probable,  that  the  Papal  power  is 


121 

intended ;  and  if  so,  the  scorching  heat  may  haife  re- 
ference to  the  Jesuits  who  were  not  estabHshed  till  the 
year  1540,  some  time  after  the  reformation  had  gained 
considerable  strength.  How  much  men  have  beea 
scorched  by  the  great  heat  of  the  Jesuits,  we  need 
not  detail  here  :  the  history  of  their  baneful  opera- 
tions is  familiar  to  almost  every  one. 

The  characteristic  descriptions  of  the  fifth  vial  are, 
that  the  seat  of  the  beast  and  his  kingdom  was  fuU 
of  darkness ;  and  they  gnawed  their  tongues  for 
pain  and  for  their  sores  ;  that  is,  mental  sores.  These 
descriptions,  we  apprehend,  have  reference  to  the  re- 
formation, after  it  had  gained  a  permanent  establish- 
ment :  and  to  the  banishment  of  the  Jesuits,  who 
Avere  the  military  eyes  of  Papacy,  from  every  court 
in  Europe.  The  little  horn  has  eyes  like  the  eyes  of 
a  tnan.  l&y  which  words  we  understand  great  saga- 
city, quick  perception,  which  any  one  has  to  seize, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  the  most  advantageous 
position  and  situation.  The  seat  of  the  beast,  by 
which  Rome  is  intended,  being  deprived  of  these 
mental  faculties,  his  kingdom  became  full  of  dark- 
ness. 

The  sixth  vial  contains  very  important  characteris- 
tic descriptions,  which  have  relation,  more  especially, 
to  matters  still  future,  though  perhaps  not  more  dis- 
tant, some  of  them,  than  about  seventy  years.  Time 
will  be  the  most  ceitain  expositor  of  these  matters. 
We  apprehend,  that  the  preparation  for  the  battle  of 
the  (Treat  day  has  in  part  commenced,  and  the  im- 


122 

portant  caution,  '•  Behold,  I  corneas  a  thief,"  im» 
presses  upon  our  minds  the  certainty  of  our  Saviour's 
second  advent  in  some  part  of  the  period  of  this  sixth 
vial,  which  will  terminate  A.  D.  1890,  as  we  think 
that  we  have  clearly  made  manifest.  The  aspect  of 
the  world,  especially  the  western  part  of  it,  is  such 
as  may  persuade  us  that  the  preparation  is  rapidly 
progressing.  In  the  13th  verse  we  find  the  terms 
dragon^  beast,  nnd  J(dse  prophet.  The  term  dragon, 
I  consider  as  a  symbolical  term,  used  for,  and  meaning, 
the  devil.  The  seven  heads,  ten  horns,  and  little 
horn,  are  all  represented  as  being  instigated  by  him. 
He  is  their  leader.  The  beast,  we  take  to  mean  the 
Papal  beast,  stripped  of  his  temporal  power;  who 
will  continue  to  be  idolatrous,  and  to  imprint  on  the 
foreheads  of  his  subjects,  the  mark  of  the  beast. — 
The  Papal  power  has  been  bent,  but  not  plucked  up 
by  the  roots.  The  pope  still  claims  the  highest  spi- 
ritual prerogatives,  and  they  are  conceded  to  him. — 
The  protestants  on  the  continent  of  Europe  have  be- 
come so  indifferent  to  the  principles  of  the  Christian 
religion,  which  they  formerly  defended  with  all  their 
seal  and  energy,  that  it  is  to  be  feared  many  of  them 
will  become  Papists.  By  the  false  prophet,  we  un- 
derstand the  Mahometan  delusion.  The  term  dra- 
gon is  made  use  of  here,  to  point  out  the  new  Dynas- 
ty in  France,  which  is  of  the  seven  heads,  and  not  of 
the  ten  horns 

The  new  Dynasty  in  Europe,  the  Papal  pretended 
spiritual  power,  and  the  adherents  of  Mahomet,  will 
most  probably  be  contemporary,  A.  D.  1890.  Chap. 


1:23 

xix.  20,  wc  find  the  beast  only,  and  the  Papal  false  pro- 
phet taken  ;  which  seems  toe  onfinn  the  opinion,  that 
the  Mahometan  delusion  will  have  ended  previously. 

As  we  are  in  pursuit  of  great  temporal  powers,  all 
of  whom  were  to  be  very  wicked,  and  surely  they 
have  all  been  so,  from  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  anti- 
type, to  Napoleon,  the  type,  we  will  pass  on  to  the 
17th  chapter;  where  we  find  that  an  angel  says  he 
will  show  to  John  the  judgments  of  the  great  whore, 
that  sitteth  upon  many  waters. 

Chap.  xvii.  3.  "  So  he  carried  me  away  in  the 
spirit  into  the  wilderness.  And  I  saw  a  woman  sit 
upon  a  scarlet  coloured  beast,  full  of  names  of  blas- 
phemy, having  seven  heads  and  ten  horns. 

4  "  And  the  woman  was  arrayed  in  purple  and 
scarlet  colour :  and  decked  with  gold,  and  precious 
stones,  and  pearls,  having  a  golden  cup  in  her  hand, 
full  of  abominations  and  filthiness  of  her  fornication. 

5  "  And  upon  her  forehead  was  a  name  written  ; 
Mystery,  Babylon  the  Great,  the  Mother 
OF  Harlots  and  abominations  of  the  earth. 

6  "  And  I  saw  the  woman  drunken  with  the  blood 
of  the  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of 
Jesus  :  and  when  I  saw  her,  I  wondered  with  great 
admiration. 

7  "  And  the  angel  said  unto  me.  Wherefore  didst 
thou  marvel  ?  I  will  tell  thee  the  mystery  of  the  wo- 
man, and  of  the  beast  that  carrieth  her,  which  hath 
the  seven  heads  and  ten  horns. 

8  "  The  beast  that  thou  sawest,  was,  and  is  not, 
and  shall  ascend  out  of  the  bottomless  pit,  and  into 


124 

perdition  ;  and  they  that  dwell  on  the  earth  shall  won- 
der, (whose  names  were  not  written  in  the  book  of 
life  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,)  when  they  be- 
hold the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  and  yet  is* 

9  "  And  here  is  the  mind  which  hath  wisdom. 
The  seven  heads  are  seven  mountains  on  which  the 
woman  sitteth. 

10  "  And  there  are  seven  kings :  five  are  fallen^ 
and  One  is,  and  the  other  is  not  yet  come  ;  and  Avhen 
he  cometh,  he  must  continue  a  short  space. 

11  "  And  the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  even  he 
is  the  eighth,  and  is  of  the  seven,  and  goeth  into  per- 
dition. 

12  "  And  the  ten  horns  which  thou  sawest,  are 
ten  kings,  which  have  received  no  kingdom  as  yet ; 
but  receive  power  as  kings  one  hour  with  the  beast, 

13  *'  These  have  one  mind,  and  shall  give  their 
^ower  and  strength  unto  the  beast. 

14  "  These  shall  make  war  with  the  lamb,  and 
the  lamb  shall  overcome  them ;  for  he  is  Lord  of 
lords,  and  King  of  kings  ;  and  they  tliat  are  with  him 
are  called,  and  chosen,  and  faithful. 

15  "  And  he  saith  unto  me,  the  waters  which  thou 
sawest,  where  the  whore  sitteth,  are  peoples,  and 
multitudes,  and  nations,  and  tongues. 

16  "  And  the  ten  horns  which  thou  sawest  upon 
the  beast,  these  shall  hate  the  whore,  and  shall  make 
her  desolate  and  naked,  and  shall  eat  her  flesh,  and 
burn  her  with  fire. 

17  "  For  God  hath  put  in  their  hearts  to  fulfil  his 


will,  and  to  agree,  and  give  their  kingdom  unto  the 
beast,  until  the  words  of  God  shall  Idc  fulfilled. 

18  "  And  the  woman  which  thou  sawest  is  that 
great  city  which  reigneth  over  the  kings  of  the  earth." 
Protestant  writers  have  generally,  if  not  universal- 
ly supposed,  that  we  have  here  a  pointed  description, 
not  only  of  the  Papal  Church,  but  the  very  spot  on 
the  globe  where  the  wicked  woman  was  to  have  her 
seat.  Seven  mountains,  they  say,  must  intend  the 
city  of  Rome  itself,  which  was  built  on  seven  hills ; 
and  seven  kings  must  intend  seven  different  modes 
of  administering  the  Roman  government.  We  are 
willing  to  risk  the  whole  dispute  on  this  clear  prm- 
ciple,  that  different  Dynasties,  in  the  same  govern- 
ment, are  not  in  Daniel  or  John  represented  as  dis- 
tinct and  different  heads ;  and  if  not,  this  settles  the 
tnatter  as  to  seven  Roman  heads. 

It  is  often  extremely  difficult  to  destroy  an  un- 
founded assumption.  But  we  apprehend  that  there 
is  a  clear  and  pointed  contradiction  in  saying,  that 
the  Roman  Empire  is  the  fourth  head,  and  that  the 
fourth  head  contains  seven  heads :  because  this  makea 
a  head^  mean  any  thing  and  nothing. 

The  objections  against  this  mode  of  explanation, 
are  insurmountable. 

First.  The  seven  heads,  are  seven  mountains  ; 
a  head  and  a  mountain  are  then  precisely  the  same 
thing.  Now,  wherever  the  term  moimtain,  in  other 
places  of  the  Revelations  occurs,  it  is  indisputably, 
always  used  symbolically,  and  never  means  literally 
It  mountain.     The  seven  hills,  on  which  Rome  was 


12G 

originally  built,  were  never  called  mountains,  other- 
wise than  hyperbolically ;  we  must  therefore  search 
out  another  meaning  for  the  terms  seven  mountains. 

Second.     The  term  X^';?^,  most  frequently  means 
an    individual    empire    or   kingdom,  in   Daniel. — ■ 
Now  if  the  Roman  head  be  the  fourth  head,  what 
propriety  can  there  be  in  the  idea  that  Protestant  ex- 
positors  have  almost  universally  adopted,  that  seven 
kings  mean  only    seven   different  modes,  not  even 
different   Dynasties,  in  administering    the    govern- 
ment  in  Rome.     For  the  first  mode  of  administer- 
ing the  government,  they  carry  us  biick  to  the  time 
when  the  whole  world  was  given  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
by  God  himself;    that  is,  about   750  years  before 
the  Christian  asra :  for  thus  early  did  Romulus  be- 
gin to  build  on  the  seven  mounts,  or  hills  of  Rome  : 
at  that  time  monarchical  government  prevailed  among 
a  banditti  of  robbers.     When  kings,  the  leaders  of 
this  banditti,  were  laid  aside,  then,  say  they,  one  head 
had  fallen.     In  their  place  consuls  were  substituted, 
which  form  of  government  prevailed  with  very  lit- 
tle  interruption,  till  Julius  Cassar  put  an    end  to 
what  was  very  improperly  called  the  Roman  Com- 
monwealth ;  because  there  was  a  hereditary  nobility, 
a  haughty,  proud  aristocracy.     This  event  took  place 
about  forty-nine  years  only  before  the  birth  of  Jesus 
Christ.     And  in  the  Caesarian  Dynasty  of  the  great 
Roman  sea,  or  empire,  it  is  supposed  that  we  find 
seven  heads,  of  a  beast  that  had  but  one  head. 

Third.       It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  arrive 
precisely  at  Papal  Rome,  to  make  the  seven  moun- 


127 

tains  symbolical  of  the  seven  hills  on  which  this 
city  of  Rome  was  only  in  part  built ;  and  the  seven 
Aings,  to  mean  seven  different  modes  of  administer- 
ing the  government  in  Rome,  because  other  charac- 
teristic descriptions  lead  us  to  fix,  unerringly,  upon 
that  place,  as  being  the  seat  of  a  very  coniipt  church. 
Fifth.  The  woman  sitting  on  a  beast  with  seven 
heads  and  ten  horns  must,  be  something  distinct 
from  the  heads  and  the  horns ;  for  there  is  nothing 
in  prophetic,  symbolical  language,  that  will  warrant 
our  saying,  that  the  woman  means  all,  or  any  one 
of  the  heads  or  horns.  If  the  woman  mean  a  cor- 
rupted church ;  and  a  corrupted  church  sits  on  se- 
ven heads,  and  ten  homs;  the  corrupted  church, 
and  the  heads  and  homs,  must  necessarily  be  dis- 
tinctly different  things  :  for  to  say,  that  a  head  or  a 
horn  sits  on  itself,  is  perfectly  unintelligible.  It  is 
heaping  symbol  upon  symbol,  and  continuing  in 
symbolical  darkness.  The  prophet  says,  that  the 
seven  heads  and  seve?i  moimtainsy  ai'c  severi  kings. 
The  woman  sits  on  the  seven  heads,  seven  mountains, 
seven  kings ;  all  meaning  one  and  the  same  thing 
that  she  sits  upon.  And  also,  she  sits  on  the  ten 
horns,  that  is,  ten  civil  powers,  not  dependent  for 
their  existence  on  a  con-upted  Church  ;  five  heads 
had  fiillen.  Will  any  one  say  contrary  to  what  the 
prophet  expressly  asserts,  that  the  woman  does  not 
sit  on  the  seven  fallen  heads  ?  Is  it  possible,  that 
any  one  should  be  so  totally  destitute  of  ideas,  or  of 
the  power  of  comparing  ideas,  having  the  words  of 
the  prophet  before  him^  as  to  insist  upon  it,  that  five 


128 

fallen  heads,  or  mountains,  which  are  precisely  the 
same  thing,  one  of  which  was  killed  by  a  sword, 
are  symbolical  expressions,  meaning  the  seven  hills 
on  which  the  ancient  city  of  Rome  was  built  ? 

Sixth.  The  woman  was  drunken  with  the  blood 
of  saints,  and  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus. 
If  the  woman  be  a  symbolical  term,  by  which  we 
are  to  understand,  a  corrupted  Christian  Church, 
then  by  the  words,  the  blood  of  the  saints^  and  the 
blood  of  the  martyrs  of  Jesus,  we  have  only  a  repe- 
tition of  one  and  the  same  idea.  But  the  blood  of 
Jewish  saints  was  plentifully  shed,  for  the  testimony 
which  they  bore  to  the  word  of  God.  There  has 
been  an  abundant  effusion  of  blood,  of  the  martyrs  of 
Jesus.  No  passage  in  prophecy,  can  be  produced, 
of  such  a  repetition  of  a  single  idea,  and  therefore  I 
conclude  tliat  by  the  words  "  blood  of  the  saints" 
M'C  are  to  understand  the  blood  of  Jewish  saints  ; — 
and  that  the  woman  had  an  existence  anterior  to 
the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  posterior 
to  it. 

Seventh.  If  the  woman  had  an  existence  before 
and  after  the  promulgation  of  the  Gospel,  she  must 
be  something  attached  to  human  nature,  and  cannot 
be  a  distinct  independent  existence  of  herself  The 
term  Church,  is  a  mere  creature  of  the  mind  :  as  a 
general  term,  wc  can  affix  no  precise  idea  to  it.  So 
also  is  sin  a  general  term,  pcrsoniiied  in  scripture, 
*'  tlie  xvagcs  of  sin  is  death.^"*  Sin  is  here  represent- 
ed as  a  master  paying  wages.  But  it  is  not  an  inde- 
pendeiit  existence  of  itself.     Its  very  essence  con- 


129 

sisU  in  the  voluntary  immoral  acts  of  intelligent 
agents.  By  tlie  term  woman,  wc  understand  pre- 
cisely, what  Zcchariah  says  of  a  woman,  chap.  v.  7, 
8.  *'  And  behold  there  was  lifted  up  a  talent  of 
lead  ;  and  this  is  a  woman,  that  sitteth  in  the  midst  of 
the  epha  :  and  he  said,  this  is  wickedness.'* 

Eighth.  We  do  not  give  too  extensive  a  meaning 
to  the  term  woman  ;  for  the  18th  verse  of  the  chapter 
we  are  examining,  says,  "  And  the  woman  which 
thou  sawest,  is  that  great  city,  which  reignetli  over 
the  kings  of  the  earth."  Now,  in  order  to  show, 
that  the  great  city^  intends  precisely  and  literally  the 
city  of  Rome,  and  the  government  that  did  prevail 
there,  and  exercise  authority  over  the  kings  of  the 
earth,  before  and  after  the  Christian  aera;  it  must 
be  first  shown,  that  no  previous  government  ever  ex- 
ercised such  authority.  And  if  any  one  undertake 
to  demonstrate  this,  he  must  first  demonstrate  that 
Daniel  was  an  impostor. 

Ninth.  It  is  acknowledged  by  all  commentators' 
that  I  have  had  access  to,  that  the  ten  honis  mean 
ten  kingdoms  in  Europe,  whose  existences  were 
posterior  to  the  commencement  of  Christianity  in 
Rome.  Now  it  must  be  confessed,  that  these  ten 
kingdoms  have  been  independent  political  existen- 
ces :  we  therefore  may,  by  analogy,  infer  that  the  se- 
ven heads  were  seven  political  existences  ;  otherwise 
the  classing  them  together  would  be  mysterious  in- 
deed. The  symbolical  term,  head,  in  Daniel,  means 
AH  empire  in  all  its  duration  and  extent.      Nebu- 


/ 


130 

chadnezzar  was  the  head  of  gold.  The  term  head,  here 
evidently  intends  the  Babylonish  empire.  The  Me- 
dopersian  empire  was  the  head  of  silver  ;  and  the 
Macedonian,  the  head  of  brass.  The  kings  of  Rome, 
contemporary  with  the  Babylonish  and  Medoper- 
sian  empires,  were  not  prophetic  heads  ;  there  were 
not  two  heads,  at  that  time,  co-existing.  In  Rome, 
there  were  but  three  eminent  and  distinguished  kinds 
of  administering  the  government  from  its  first  exis- 
tence, to  A.  D.  476.  Indeed,  we  may  say  that  there 
were  but  two  ;  for  monarchical,  and  imperial  go- 
vernments, differ  in  their  name  only.  We  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  seveji  heads  on  which  the  woman 
sitteth,  intend  something  very  different  from  any 
thing  that  we  find  in  the  slow  and  gradual  rise  of 
the  Romans,  till  the  time  when  they  really  commenc- 
ed to  be  the  fourth  of  the  seven  great  heads. 

Tenth.  If  w€  suppose  that  the  term  woman,  means  a 
corrupted  Christian  Church,  we  shall  never  be  able  to 
find  out  what  is  meant  by  her  sitting  on  seven  heads  ; 
for  the  Christian  corrupted  Church  has  not  been  co- 
extensive, or  contemporary  with  the  modes  of  go- 
vernment that  first  commenced  in  Rome,  under  kings, 
&c.  The  excellent  Mede,  and  the  less  excellent  Ju- 
vien,  who  has  almost  literally  followed  him,  say,  that 
the  first  head  on  which  the  woman  sits,  is  Romulus, 
and  his  successors,  Roman  kings.  If  the  woman 
sat  on  the  head  of  Romulus,  and  the  Roman  kings, 
his  successors  till  their  extinction,  and  on  the  sub- 
sequent modes  of  Roman  government,  the  term  can- 
not be  used  symbolically,  for  the  corrupt  Jewish,  or 


131 

the  corrupt  Christian  Church.  But  there  is  no  im- 
propriety in  siii)posing  that  she  sat  on  the  Babylonish 
head,  which  inflicted  very  severe  wounds  on  the  cor- 
rupted Jewish  Church,  and  the  subsequent  prophetic 
heads. 

Eleventh.  The  term  city^  is  a  very  universal  and  com- 
prehensive  term.  In  Scripture,  it  sometimes  means 
a  wiillcd  town  ;  the  Church  of  God  ;  the  Church  tri- 
umphant in  glory  ;  Heaven  ;  that  wherein  a  person 
puts  his  trust  or  confidence. 

"  The  woman  which  thou  sawest,  is  that  great  city^ 
"  which  reigneth  over  the  kings  of  the  earth."  The 
terms  great  city,  here,  we  apprehend,  mean  the  great 
city  of  Wickedness  ;  which  embraces  seven  prophet- 
ic heads,  ten  horns,  and  a  little  horn.  Imperial  Ba- 
bylon, if  we  believe  Daniel,  ruled  over  the  kings  of 
the  earth  more  extensively  than  imperial  Rome  did. 
Mede,  the  prince  of  expositors,  and  his  humble  fol- 
lowers, have  been  obliged  to  suppose,  because  they 
seem  not  to  have  kno\\Ti  that  any  thing  else  could  be 
supposed,  that  this  woman,  the  great  whore  with 
whom  the  kings  of  the  earth  have  committed  fornica- 
tion, without  any  exception,  Mystery  Babylon  the 
great,  commenced  with  the  petty  insignificant  kings 
of  the  Romans,  when  they  did  not  rule  over  any  of 
the  kings  of  the  earth,  unnoticed  by  prophecy  :  we 
therefore  leave  them  in  tliat  oblivion  which  prophe- 
cy has  left  them.  The  city  of  God,  and  the  city  of 
wickedness,  where  "  Satan's  seat  is,"  are  universal 
terms. 

Twelfth.  Prophecy,  with  respect  to  great  and  wicked 


132 

empires,  heads,  or  mountains,  commenced  widi  im- 
perial Babylon ;  and  I  do  not  see  with  what  proprie- 
ty any  one  can  deny,  that  this  is  ^  one  of  the  heads  on 
which  the  woman  sat. 

We  are  necessarily  obliged  to  suppose,  that  in  the 
13th  chapter,  John  begins  his  prophetic  history  of  the 
western  empire,  A.  D.  392,  when  imperial  Rome 
was  divided.    He  had,  however,  in  the  fourth  trumpet, 
carried  us  as  far  as  the  extinction  of  the  Caesars  in 
Europe,  A.  D.  476.     We  compute  the  seven  heads, 
and  the  eighth  head,  as  follows  : 
The  first  head  is  imperial  Babylon. 
The  second,  is  the  Medopersian  empire. 
The  third,  is  the  Macedonian  empire. 
The  fourth,  is  the  Roman  empire. 
The  fifth,  is  the  western  empire — when  this  fell, 
five  had  fallen. 

The  sixth,  is  the  eastern  empire. 
C  The  seventh,  is  the  Mahometan  delusion ; 
C  The  eighth,  is  the  new  dynasty  in  Europe,  con» 
temporary,  after  the  rising  up  of  the  little  horn. 

The  foregoing  objections  to  our  taking  the  seven 
heads,  as  intending  seven  several  forms  of  adminis- 
tering the  Roman  government,  are,  in  our  opinion, 
unanswerable.  We  may  add  one  more  which  is  de- 
cisive ;  which  is  this,  that  Rome  popular,  is  not  no- 
ticed by  Daniel  as  a  head.  The  head  commences 
clearly  with  imperial  Rome,  about  49  years  before 
the  birth  of  our  Saviour.  Therefore,  it  is  absurd  to 
look  for  forms  of  government  that  were  among  the 
Romans^  before  Rome  became  an  imperial  head; 


tSHMIIB  I 


133 

We  now  proceed  to  take  a  cursory  view  of  tlie 
18tli  and  19th  cliapters  of  the  Revelations.  And 
here  wc  readilv  confess,  that  the  greatness,  and  so- 
lemn grandeur  of  the  penal  descriptions,  require,  to 
do  justice  to  them,  powers  of  mind  that  neither  a 
Shakspeare  nor  a  Milton  ever  possessed. 

As  the  papal  tyranny  is  now  very  quietly  put  down, 
protcstants  need  no  longer  to  stretch  their  imagina- 
tions, in  order  to  paint  it  in  the  most  horrible  colours, 
and  to  make  the  papal  ivhore  of  Babylon^  to  be  the 
final  reservoir  of  all  the  filthy  abominations  and  cru- 
elties that  have  been  in  the  world.  Other  powers 
have  been  abominably  wicked  and  cruel.  The  Scrip- 
ture whore  of  Babylon.,  is  in  part  only,  the  papal 
Church,  and  not  the  whole  of  her. 

We  have  defined  the  symbolical  term  woinany  to 
mean  wickedness,  on  account  of  her  long-continued 
existence  ;  and  by  the  terms  great  city,  the  prophet- 
ic city  of  wickedness,  commencing  with  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and  terminating  with  the  little  horn,  Dan.  vii. 
The  papal  horn  has  come  to  an  end  ;  but  not  in  that 
way  which  the  dynasty  of  the  little  horn  is  to  come 
to  its  end.  It  would  be  an  improper  anticipation,  if 
we  were  to  decide  in  what  precise  way  and  manner 
the  Mahometan  dynasty,  or  dynasties,  will  have  an 
end  put  to  them.  There  may  be  some  ground  to 
conjecture,  that  their  end  will  happen  some  short 
time  before  that  of  the  little  horn  :  for  Daniel  says, 
chap.  xi.  45.  "  Yet  he  shall  come  to  his  end,  and 
none  shall  help  him."  It  is  generally  thought,  and 
upon  solid  grounds,  that  this  passage  has  a  sole  refer- 


134 

ence  to  tlie  Turkish  ^Mahometan  Dynasty.  Tlie 
precise  manner  of  the  termination  of  the.  little  horn, 
is  pointed  out  to  us  in  very  different  language,  and 
may  induce  a  belief,  that  it  will  terminate  some  time 
after  the  other.  In  confirmation  of  the  idea,  that  the 
Mahometan  Dynitsty  may  pass  away  before  the  final 
catastrophe,  we  adduce  Rev.  xix.  20.  "  And  the 
"  beast  was  taken,  and  with  him  the  false  prophet, 
'*  that  wrought  miracles  before  him  ;  with  which  he 
"  deceived  them  that  had  received  the  mark  of  the 
"  beast,  and  them  that  worshipped  the  image." 

It  will  be  asked  here,  what  beast  is  taken  ?  We  an- 
swer, that  there  have  been  three  Dynasties  in  the  west- 
ern Empire  which  have  passed  away  :  there  is  now 
a  fourth  Dynasty,  which  is  of  the  seven.  The  beast 
embraces  all  these  Dynasties,  and  is  therefore  a  sin- 
gle beast.  The  false  prophet  evidently  intends  the 
corrupt  papal  Church,  as  may  be  seen  by  consulting 
chap.  xiii.  15,  16, 17.  The  new  Dynasty  in  Europe 
has  stripped  the  Pope  of  his  temporal  power  ;  but  he 
is  permitted,  and  no  doubt  will  be  continuedly  per- 
mitted, to  retain  his  supposed  spiritual  power.  He 
that  gives  a  flagrantly  false  construction,  to  the  words 
of  prophecy,  is  a  false  prophet.  We  may  fairly  infer, 
that  the  corruptions  of  the  papal  Church  will  conti- 
nue to  the  time  of  the  end.  But  we  have  no  where  any 
intimation,  that  this  will  be  the  case  with  the  Maho^- 
metan  delusion.  We  are  plainly  told  that  it  is  to 
have  a  period  of  1260  years,  and  this  is  sufficient  for 
us.  What  events  will  take  place  between  this 
tibiae,  and  A.  D.  1965,   I  readily  confess  I  do  not 


135 

know.  I  find  no  characteristic  descriptions  in  the 
prophecies,  tliat  enable  me  to  decide,  as  to  any  in- 
tervening events.  One  thing,  however,  we  are  per- 
suaded of,  which  is,  that  the  prophecies  seriously 
impress  on  our  minds,  that  as  the  time  grows  shorter, 
national  happiness  and  prosperity  will  rapidly  de- 
crease ;  and  infidelity  will  make  rapid  strides  ;  and 
the  times  will  be  perilous. 

Will  there  be  a  millennium  upon  the  schemes  of 
Lowman,  Johnson,  Faber,  and  others  ?  I  am  persuad- 
ed, that  die  prophecies  are  pointedly  against  all  such 
schemes.  Almost  all  the  eminent  Lutheran  divines, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  informed,  deny  that  there  will 
be  any  future  millennium. 

I  have  two  quarto  volumes,  on  the  Revelations,  in 
Latin,  written  by  John  Marck,  about  a  hundred  years 
ago,  in  which  there  are  evident  traits  of  a  first-rate 
genius.  As  a  Calvinistic  divine,  his  rank  is  among 
the  first  for  natural  and  acquired  abilities.  These 
volumes  are  dedicated  to  King  William.  This  au- 
thor expressly  denies  a  future  millennium.  Some 
hold,  that  the  saints,  and  they  only,  will  be  raised 
about  two  hundred  years  hence,  and  have  the  go- 
vernment of  the  world.  And  my  settled  and  fixed 
opinion  is,  that  if  there  is  to  be  a  future  millennium, 
it  cannot  take  place  till  after  the  general  resurrection ; 
the  prophecies  being  clearly  and  explicidy  against  a 
millennium,  previous  to  that  great  event.  Be  this, 
however,  as  it  may,  the  following  short  view  of 
Scripture  chronology  is  submitted  ;  premising  fii^st, 
that  God  has  never  lost  sight  of  his  chosen  people^ 


136 

tlie  Jews.  To  the  Scriptural  chronology  of  this  chosen 
people,  we  resort,  with  much  more  confidence  than 
to  profane  chronology.  The  years  of  their  continu- 
ing to  be  God's  chosen  people  were  marked  out  by 
seventies ;  and  also  the  years  of  their  desolations, 
the  two  periods  being  precisely  equal  to  each  other. 
The  period  of  the  desolation  of  the  Jews,  is  the  pe- 
riod of  the  Christian  dispensation  in  its  past  and  pre- 
sent form.  We  do  not  rely  entirely  upon  an  analo- 
gical argument ;  but  upon  the  words  of  the  spirit  of 
prophecy. 

Daniel  says,  chap.  ix.  24.  Seventy,  seventy ;  that 
is,  many  seventies,  are  determined  upon  thy  people. 

From  the  institution  of  the  law  of  cir- 
cumcision, to  the  Babylonish  capti- 
vity, were  18  seventies,  that  is,    -     -    1260  yrs. 

From  that  captivity  to  the  birth  of 

Christ,  9  seventies,  or,    -    -    -     -      630 


1890 


Christ,  according  to  Daniel,  was  to  be 

cut  off  in  the  middle  of  a  seventy,  35 

Thirty-five  years  after  which,  Vespa- 
sian and  Titus  took  Jerusalem,  -     -         35 

Five  years  after  which  the  rebellious 
Jews  were  banished  from  their  coun- 
try,      -  5 

1965 
We  now  proceed  to  show,  that  the  prophetic  pe- 
riods hold  up  to  our  view  the  same  period  of  1965 


137 

years  for  the  Christian  dispensation  in  its  present 
form. 

The  Babylonish  captivity  was  630  years  before  the 
birth  of  our  Saviour,  and  terminated  5G0  years  be- 
fore it.  Daniel  informs  us,  that  when  that  empire 
terminated,  seven  times  were  to  pass  over  it ;  that  is, 
2520  years :  deducting  560  years  before  the  birth  of 
Christ,  the  period  will  terminate  after  it,  1960. 

The  2300  days,  or  years,  so  mentioned,  probably 
because  they  are  not  measurable  by  70,  being  thirty- 
two  seventies,  and  sixty  over,  commence  with  Alex- 
ander. Allowing  to  the  Medopersian  empire  220 
years,  which,  from  profane  chronology,  we  presume 
is  correct ;  and  if  not  perfectly  so,  Scripture  chrono- 
logy must  be  adhered  to  ;  deducting  from  560  years,: 
when  the  Babylonish  empire  terminated,  220  years, 
leaves  340  years  that  Alexander  commenced  before 
Christ ;  deducting  340  years  from  2300  years,  the 
period  must  tenninate,  A.  D.  1960. 

The  next  prophetic  period,  (and  there  are  but  the 
two  former  and  the  present  one  that  lead  us  to  a  cor- 
rect view  of  the  termination  of  the  present  Gospel 
dispensation,)  is  that  allotted  to  the  Mahometan  Dy- 
nasty. This  period,  or  the  commencement  of  it,  is 
perhaps  better  ascertainable  tlian  the  other  two  ;  pro- 
fane chronology  being  more  coiTect  since  it  beg-an, 
than  it  was  before  the  birth  of  our  Saviour. 


138 

The  Mahometan  Dynasty  commenced  after 

Christ,      - 630 

It  is  to  htfor  a  time^  times,  and  an  half,     1260 

1890 
Dan.  c.  xii.  11.  has  1290  days :  over  1260,  -  30 
Verse  12  he  has  1335  days  :  over  1290,  -      45 

1965 
Thus  the  prophetic  periods  respecting  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation,  in  its  present  form,  give  to  it  pre- 
cisely the  same  duration  that  the  Jewish  dispensation 
had ;  or  rather,  general  prophetic  periods  that  cannot 
be  otherwise  applied,  establish  the  fact  incontro- 
vertibly. 

I  have  examined  the  prophetic  chronology  of  se- 
veral, who  are  reputed  to  be  standard  authors  on  the 
prophecies.  I  will  introduce  that  of  Bryce  Johnson 
only,  because  he  has  been  lately  recommended  to  the 
public,  by  very  learned  and  grave  authority.  One  of 
the  recommenders,  however,  afterwards  was  candid 
enough  to  tell  me  he  had  never  read  the  books  he 
had  recommended.  Johnson's  chronology  is  as  good 
as  Faber's ;  and  as  good  as  that  of  any  other  author 
on  the  prophecies  that  I  have  seen :  and  if  such  be 
the  chronology  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  I  should 
be  almost  tempted  to  say,  with  the  Jews,  after  they 
were  disappointed  in  their  expected  Messiah,  **  Curs- 
ed be  he  that  undertaketh  to  number  the  times." 


139 

Doctor  Johnson'' s  prophetic  chronology. 
The  fii-st,  second,  and  third  seals,  embra.ce  the  three 
first  centuries. 

The  fourth  seal  embraces  eleven  years  of  the  fourth 
centuF}-. 

The  fifth  seal  embraces  no  time ;  the  vision  is  sup- 
posed to  ha\e  a  sole  respect  to  the  year  SIX,  and  to 
Christians  tliat  were  martyred  before  that  time,  to  be 
verified  about  two  hundred  years  hence. 
The  sixth  seal  commences  about  325. 
The  four  angels,  Rev.  c.  vii.  1.  intend  Constantine 
first  and  second,  Constantius,  and  Constans ;   and 
embrace  the  period  from  32^  to  340.     Verses  2d 
and  3d  respect  the  sealing  of  the  servants  of  God, 
and  fall  within  the  same  period.     Verses  4th  to  8th 
embrace  the  period  between  the  fourth  century,  and 
the  year  2000.     Verses  9th  to  17th  commence  about 
2000. 

The  seventh  seal  commences  325,  and  embraces 
no  time.  Half  an  hour  is  a  symbol  for  a  natural 
week  in  the  year  325.  The  calm  is  disturbed  by  the 
Arians,  Rev.  c.  viii.  2.  The  seven  angels  embrace  the 
period  of  time,  from  325  to  2000 ;  and  respect  reli- 
gious  contentions,  without  any  express  period. 

The  first  trumpet  embraces  the  fourth,  fifth,  and 
sixth  centuries,  and  describes  the  Arian  heresy. 
Events  predicted  by  the  trumpets  follow  each  other 
as  to  commencement,  but  terminate  differently. 

The  second  trumpet  describes  Julian  the  Apostate, 
A.  D.  381. 


140 

The  third  trumpet  describes  the  ambition  of  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople. 

The  fourth  trumpet  describes  the  darkness  that 
commenced  about  A.  D.  400. 

The  fifth  trumpet  embraces  150  years;  begins 
with  Boniface  III.  606,  that  is,  from  his  becoming 
supreme  Bishop,  to  the  Popes  becoming  temporal 
princes,  1756. 

The  sixth  trumpet.  The  four  angels  intend,  Ye- 
sid,  Moawiah,  Marwan  and  Abdomelic,  from  699  to 
1Q99. 

Chap.  X.  11,  1^.  The  computation  is  here  ex- 
tremely confused;  the  general  application  of  the  sym- 
bolical language  is  to  Popery. 

One  of  the  Doctor's  computations  I  had  not  met 
with  before.  He  says,  (Vol.  I.  p.  363.)  and  I  have 
since  found  that  others  said  the  same  thing  long  be- 
fore he  said  it,  *'  But  as  each  of  these  years  consists 
of  twelve  months,  and  each  of  the  months  of  thirty 
days ;  each  year  must  contain  three  hundred  and 
sixty  days,  which  are  five  days  and  a  fraction  less 
than  a  solar  year,  which  hath  for  a  considerable  time 
also  been  the  civil  year  :  therefore,  five  times  1260 
days  is,  (are,)  6300  days,  equal  to  17  solar  years, 
which  must  be  deducted  from  1260  years,  and  the 
true  number  of  solar  years  will  be  1243,  the  exact 
period  represented  by  the  symbolic  number  42 
months." 

We  only  observe  on  this  crude  and  undigested 
passage,  that  the  difference,  according  to  the  Doctor's 


141 

method  of  computation,  is  not  17,  but  18  years  and 
50  days. 

The  suggested  method  of  computation,  is  replete 
Avith  the  grossest  absurdity. 

Tlic  Doctor's  computation,  in  order  to  make  666 
intend  the  year  756,  is  visionary^  in  the  extreme. 
To  estabhsh  as  a  very  important  aera,  the  year  756, 
from  which  asra  the  Doctor  makes  his  very  impor- 
tant deduction  that  the  millennium  will  commence 
A-  D.  2000,  he  says,  John  wrote  the  Revelations 
precisely  A.  D.  99,  and  deducting  from  the  nnmber 
666,  five  days  and  a  fraction,  will  reduce  them  to  657; 
add  to  this  number  99,  and  the  sum  will  be  756. — 
This  is  the  sole  ground  for  the  Doctor*s  informing 
us,  with  assurance,  that  the  millennium  will  com- 
mence A.  D.  1999,  or  2000  :  for  756  and  1243  make 
1999. 

The  first  vial  he  commences  about  A.  D.  756: 
when  it  ends  I  have  not  found. 

The  second  vial  embraces  the  11th,  12th,  and  13th, 
centuries. 

The  third  vial  commences  about  the  middle  of 
the  13th  century ;  continues  to  the  15th  century, 
nearly. 

The  fourth  vial  embraces  the  16th  century. 
The  fifth  vial  continues  from  the  16th  to  the  20th 
centuiy,  nearly. 

The  sixth  vial  begins  1998,  and  continues  one 
year. 

Such  are  the  computations  of  Doctor  Johnson. 
I  may  be  mistaken  in  my  computations ;  but  sure- 


i42 

ly,  the  few  sincere  Christians  that  are  yet  in  the  world, 
ought  to  cherish  all  such  as  appear  to  be  seriously 
and  conscientiously  investigating  the  great  prophe- 
tically historic  drama. 

As  to  the  termination  of  temporal  persecuting 
beasts;  the  difference  among  commentators  is  tri- 
fling. They  generally  agree,  that  they  will  cease  to 
exist  about  A.  D.  2000.  But  their  agreement  in 
support  of  the  idea  seems  to  be  mere  guessing.  I 
am  sure  that  Doctor  Johnson  is  a  mere  guesser; 
and  no  computer  of  the  prophetic  periods. 

By  the  words,  "  termination  of  the  present  Gospel 
dispensation^''^  I  do  not  mean  to  convey  an  idea  that 
there  will  ever  be  another  Gospel ;  any  other  founda- 
tion than  that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ. 
I  mean  to  convey  this  idea,  that  there  will,  in  some 
future  period  of  time,  be  officers  in  the  Church,  so 
perfectly  correct,  that  they  will  not  build  on  that 
foundation,  neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  precious 
stones,  nor  wood,  nor  hay,  nor  stubble.  1  Cor.  iii. 
12.  The  inspired  Apostles  built  correctly  on  that 
foundation ;  but  no  other  men  have,  or  can. 


143 


^Clie  foregoing;  General  OhserrationSf  having  been  sub- 
mitted in  manuscript  to  Doctor  Romeyic,  he  was  so 
obliging  as  to  send  im,  in  a  Letter,  the  following 
Hemarks. 

DEAR  sra, 

I  HAVE  read  your  manuscript  on  the  prophecies 
of  Daniel  and  John,  with  some  attention.  The  na- 
ture of  the  subject  is  such,  that  several  months  at 
least  are  necessary  to  examine  it  with  sufficient  at- 
tention. All  I  contemplate  by  this  note  is  to  give 
you  the  general  impression  left  upon  my  mind,  to- 
gether with  a  remark  or  two  on  some  things  you 
have  advanced.  I  shall  write  with  perfect  freedom, 
trusting  to  your  candour  for  my  apology. 

I  am  not  convinced  by  your  reasoning,  that  there 
is  any  difference  between  the  number  of  great  king, 
doms  represented  to  Nebuchadnezzar  in  his  vision 
of  a  great  image,  and  to  Daniel  in  his  vision  of  four 
beasts.  There  seems  to  me  a  propriety  and  neces- 
sity, that  the  prophet  should  see  in  their  true  and 
spiritual  character,  those  kingdoms  which  the  heathen 
king  saw  merely  in  their  temporal  aspect.  To  the 
latter,  the  one  appeared  as  a  head  of  gold,  another  as 
the  breast  and  arms  of  silver,  &c. ;  each  of  them  be- 
ing symbolized  by  something  which  passes  current 
with  the  world  for  its  preciousness  or  usefulness. 
To  the  latter,  all  of  them,  without  discrimmation, 
appeared  as  wild  beasts,  destructive  in  their  conse- 
quences to  men,  as  well  as  fierce  and  barbarous  in 
their  nature.     Daniel  vii.   17.  merelv  refers  to  the 


M^ 


144 

fact^  that  these  kingdoms  are  earthlif  kingdunib. 
Daniel  saw  his  vision  in  the  first  year  of  Belshaz- 
zar,  seventeen  years  before  the  destruction  of  the 
empire  of  Babylon  ;  at  a  time  when  it  was  still  vi- , 
gorous  and  flourishing.  Of  course,  that  empire 
could  be  properly  represented  to  him  in  vision :  as 
much  so  as  it  was  to  Nebuchadnezzar. 

The  vision  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the  4th  chapter 
of  Daniel,  appears  to  me  to  be  specifically  confined, 
by  the  prophet,  in  his  interpretation  to  that  monarch 
personally,  and  therefore  is  not  prophetic  of  his 
kingdom.  What  you  say  about  Daniel's  use  of  the 
term  time^  does  not  convince  me  that  your  view  of 
the  vision  is  correct.  If  the  prophet  never  uses  the 
term  tlme^  unless  to  express  360  years,  your  conclu- 
sion, as  to  the  duration  of  the  Babylonish  empire,  is  in- 
correct. For  if  a  time  means  always  360  years,  times ^ 
upon  the  same  principle,  means  720  years,  and  seven 
times,  5040,  instead  of  2520.  The  '  times''  meant 
in  the  vision,  seem  to  be  determinately  explained 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  himself,  in  the  34th  verse  of 
the  4th  chapter,  to  be  days,  (that  is,  prophetic  days,) 
viz.  years. 

I  do  not  distinctly  perceive  what  you  make  of  the 
'  little  horn  which  came  forth  out  of  the  four  notable 
ones  which  came  up  in  place  of  the  great  horn  of 
the  he-goat.^  I  believe  Mahomet  is  meant  by  it. 
At  all  e\  ents,  it  is  different  from  the  little  horn  of 
the  fourth  beast,  exhibited  in  the  7th  chapter.  The 
particle  "^V  which  is  translated  '  until'  in  our  common 
^^ersion,  is  translated  '«?  in  the  Septuagint,  and  ap- 


145 

pears  to  me  to  have  the  force  of  "  for ;"  being 
equivalent  to  our  English  phraseology,  *'  for  the 
space  of."  I  cannot  but  tliink,  therefore,  that  it  un- 
folds to  us  the  duration  of  the  power  of  the  little 
horn  of  the  fourtli  beast. 

Witii  respect  to  the  1 1th  chapter,  I  have  Inet  no 
explanation  which  satisfies  me. 

The  predictions  contained  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion, are  expressly  said,  v.  1.  and  4.  of  chap.  i.  to 
relate  to  future  tilings,  and  therefore  cannot  refer  to 
the  past.  Your  interpretation  of  the  seals,  especially 
the  first,  does  not  satisfy  me.  It  must,  in  my  opi- 
nion, refer  to  some  distinct  period  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  subsequent  to  the  time  when  John  saw 
his  prophetic  visions.  Your  view  of  the  whore,  ex- 
hibited in  the  17th  chapter,  on  the  same  account  is 
unsatisfactory,  referring  to  something  which  is  pasty 
as  well  as  future. 

Rome,  by  her  own  writers,  is  called  Urbs  Septi- 
collis.  The  hills  on  which  the  city  was  built,  were 
each  called  Mons,  CoUis,  &c.  as  you  will  find  by 
consulting  Livy.  A  festival  was  even  celebrated, 
called  Septimontium  Festus*.  See  Adam's  Roman 
Antiquities.  Besides  this,  the  angel  who  explains 
the  vision  to  John,  says  expressly,  the  seven  heads 
are  seven  mountains.  If  mountains  here  be,  as  you 
say  they  are,  symbolical,  we  must  conclude  the 
angel  explained  one  symbol  by  another  symbol. 
Then  the  ten  kings,  which  the  angel  declares  to  be 
explanatory  of  the  ten  hems,  are  also  symbolical^ 

•  featttt  is  an  adjective. 
V 


146 

not  meaning  ten  kingdoms,  but  something  else,  for 
the  discovery  of  which  we  have  no  clue. 

You  represent  this  symbolical  whore  as  sitting  up- 
on the  seven  kings  ;  whereas,  she  is  said  to  sit  upon 
the  seven  mountains.  The  representation  is,  "  the 
whore  sitting  upon  the  scarlet  coloured  beast  with 
seven  heads  and  ten  horns."  As  the  true  Church  is 
described  under  the  figure  of  a  female,  so  an  apostate 
Church  is  described  by  an  adulteress,  or  whore.  The 
symbolical  representation  pictures  to  our  minds  an 
apostate  Church  sitting  upon  a  ieast ;  that  is,  a  tem- 
poral empire,  which  has  seven  heads  and  ten  horns. 
I  confess  the  idea  is  strongly  impressed  upon  my 
mind,  that  this  empire  is  the  Roman,  which  has  ex- 
isted under  seven  forms  of  government,  previous  to 
that  eighth  which  now  exists,  which  is  of  the  seven, 
and  goeth  into  perdition.  This  eighth  I  consider 
Bonaparte.     I  add  no  more. 

These  few  hints  are  thrown  out  as  explanatory  of 
ni}  impressions  and  views  of  the  subject.  They  are 
submitted  to  you  with  the  frankness  of  friendship, 
and  the  deference  which  is  due  to  your  character  and 
respectability. 

I  beg  leave,  in  conclusion,  to  remark,  that  John 
Marck  was  not  a  Lutheran  divine,  but  a  divine  of  the 
Reformed  Church,  as  distinct  from  the  Lutheran,  and 
particularly  a  divine  of  the  Low  Dutch  Reformed 
Church. 

I  am,  with  respect  and  affection,  your  friend 
and  Fellow-Christian  in  the  faith  of  a  precious 
Gospel,  J.  B.  ROMEYN. 

SAMUEL  OSGOOD,  ESQ. 

JVexv-York,  Nov,  6,  1810. 


I 


U7 

N.  B.  I  had  almost  forgotten  to  say  any  thing 
about  the  two  witnesses.  The  beast  which  slays 
them,  is  tlie  same  beast  on  which  the  whore  sits, 
Rev.  xi.  7.  h  xvii.  8.  Both  these  beasts  ascend  out 
of  the  "  bottomless  pit ;"  and  consequently,  if  the 
beast  in  Rev.  xi.  7.  be,  as  you  suppose,  Mahomet; 
that  in  Rev.  xvii.  8.  must  be  Mahomet  also ;  and  of 
course  the  whore  sits  upon  Mahomet,  who  must  have 
something  to  answer  to  the  seven  heads  and  ten  horns. 
I  must  repeat  what  I  mentioned  to  you  in  conversa- 
tion, diat  I  had  seen  nothing  which  satisfied  my  mind 
that  the  witnesses  were  slain.  The  view  which  I 
have  given  in  my  Sermons  on  that  subject,  still  re- 
mains most  satisfactory  to  me.     Yours  respectfully, 

J.  B.  R. 


To  the  foregoing  Letter,  the  following  answer 
was  returned: 

JRev.  and  Dear  Sir,  New-York,  Nov.  9, 1810. 

I  THANK  you  sincerely  for  your  letter,  received 
yesterday.  I  discover  in  it  the  characteristic  features 
of  a  gentleman  :  and  that  which  is  more,  the  candour 
and  spirit  of  a  Christian.  If  I  should  publish  the 
manuscript,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  publishing  your 
Letter  with  it,  if  you  do  not  object  to  it. 

I  am,  Rev.  Sir,  very  respectfully, 

S.  O. 

JOHN  B.  ROMEYN,  D.  D. 


148 


Remarks  on  the  Doctor^ s  Letter. 

1.  The  exhibition  to  Nebuchadnezzar  of  a  terrible 
image  in  the  form  of  a  man,  on  some  of  whose  parts 
were  painted  distinctly  different  colours,  the  whole 
image  being  emblematic  of  all  the  future  temporal 
tyrannical   governments,  except  the  monarch's  own, 
that  were  to  be  in  this  world,  "  till  that  a  stone  was 
cut  out  without  hands,  which  smote  the  image  on  his 
feet  that  were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  brake  them  in 
pieces,"  deserves  attentive  consideration.      It  may 
be  questioned,  whether  the  monarch  had  so  clear  and 
distinct  a  view  of  the  parts  of  the  image  below  the 
belly  and  thighs  of  brass,  as  he  had  of  the  three  first 
parts  marked  by  different  colours.     A  general,  and 
not  a  particular  view  of  the  lower  parts,  seems  to 
be  all  that  Nebuchadnezzar  had.     And  there  seems 
to  be  good  ground  for  adopting  this  idea,  because 
Daniel  certainly  describes  to  us  three  distinct  em- 
pires lower  down  than  the  great  Roman  empire.     It 
does  not  appear,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  knew  what  the 
ten  toes,  or  rather,  that  the  toes  meant  ten  kingdoms  ; 
nor  does  he  seem  to  have  had  any  view  whatever  of 
the  little  horn.     We  therefore  conclude,  that  the  mo- 
narch had  not  a  distinct  and  several  view  of  the  parts 
of  the  image  after  the  three  first.     If  he  had,  Daniel 
certainly  omitted  to  describe  them  to  him. 

But  let  us  grant,  that  imperial  Rome  is  the  fourth 
and  last  empire,  and  that  it  absorbs  the  Mahometan, 
the  Eastern  and  Western  Empires,  the  Popes,  the 
ten  horns,  and  the  little  horn  m  itself:  what  do  we 


149 

gain  by  it  ?  What  new  view,  or  what  view  at  all,  docs 
it  give  us  of  prophecy  ?  What  inference  can  be 
drav^Ti  from  the  fact,  that  throws  any  new  light  on  tlic 
prophecies?  All,  I  think,  that  can  be  said  in  favour 
of  the  idea  is,  it  is  so,  therefore  it  is  so :  our  own 
ideas  of  propriety  in  the  case ;  that  is,  that  the  image 
should  appear  in  one  shape  and  colour  to  the  Heathen 
monarch,  and  in  another  to  Daniel,  may  be  delusive  ; 
of  course  will  not  warrant  the  inference,  that  the  four 
beasts  which  Daniel  saw  in  vision,  chap.  vii.  are  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  the  four  first  parts  of  the  monarch's 
image ;  or  more  particularly,  that  the  three  first  of 
each  are  the  same. 

2.  The  vision  of  the  Heathen  monarch,  in  the  4th 
chapter,  I  do  not  apply  to  him  personally,  but  to  the 
Babylonish  empire ;  and  one  ground  of  my  argu- 
ment is,  that  Daniel  invariably  uses  the  term  timey  in 
a  prophetic  sense ;  that  is,  for  360  years.  But  this 
is  not  the  only  ground  of  argument.  The  symbolic- 
al tree  more  naturally  signifies  the  empire  of  Baby- 
lon, than  it  does  the  monarch  :  as  also  these  words  : 
"  Hew  down  the  tree,  and  cut  off  his  branches,  shake 
"  off  his  leaves,  and  scatter  his  fruit,  let  the  beasts 
"  get  away  from  under  it,  and  the  fowls  from  his 
"  branches."  The  prophet  says,  "  It  is  thou,  O 
"  king,  that  art  grown  and  become  strong :  for  th}^ 
"  greatness  is  grown,  and  reacheth  unto  heaven,  and 
"  thy  dominion  to  the  end  of  the  earth."  Such  was 
the  Babylonish  empire,  but  not  the  king  personally. 
An  holy  one  coming  down  from  heaven,  says,  "  hew 
the  tree  down,  and  destroy  it."     The  tree,  was  not 


130 

hewn  down  and  destroyed  till  the  Babylonish  empire 
was  destroyed. 

The  Doctor  says,  ''  what  you  say  about  Daniel's 
use  of  the  term  '  timey''  does  not  convince  me  that 
your  view  of  the  vision  is  correct.  If  the  prophet 
never  uses  the  term  '  timey'*  unless  to  express  360 
years,  your  conclusion  as  to  the  duration  of  the  Ba- 
bylonish empire  is  incorrect.  For  if  a  time  always 
means  360  years,  times,  upon  the  same  principle, 
mean  720  years;  and  seven  times,  5040  years,  in* 
stead  of  2520."  The  Doctor  will  excuse  me  for 
thinking  that  my  conclusion  is  more  correct  than  his 
arithmetic  :  for  seven  times  360  will  for  ever  be  2520 ; 
and  seven  times  720  will  for  ever  be  fourteen  times 
360,  or  5040.  My  conclusion  is  not  as  to  the  dura- 
tion of  the  Babylonish  empire,  but  as  to  its  non  du*- 
ration  for  a  certain  period.  After  the  tree  is  hewn 
down,  seven  times  ai*e  to  pass  over  it  in  that  state ; 
which,  if  prophetic,  will  terminate  A.  D.  1960.  I 
take  the  seven  times,  evidently  to  intend  prophetical 
times ;  and  if  so,  my  conclusion  is  unquestionably 
correct. 

6.  That  the  little  horn  proceeding  from  four  nota- 
ble ones,  is  not  Mahomet,  I  have,  I  think,  demon- 
strated in  my  preceding  general  view. 

4.  The  Doctor  says,  "  the  participle  V  which  is 
translated  *  until'  in  our  common  version,  is  translat- 
ed tff,  in  the  Septuagint,"  and  that  it  appears  to  him 
to  have  the  force  of  for,  being  equivalent  to  our 
English  phraseology,  "  for  the  space  of."  "I  can- 
not but  think,  tlierefore,  that  it  unfolds  to  us  the  dny-a- 


151 

tion  of  the  power  of  the  little  horn  of  the  fourth 
beast." 

Thou,^h  I  am  persuaded  that  the  characteristics  of 
the  little  hom  in  the  7th  chapter  of  Daniel  never  can 
be  rationally  applied  to  the  Papal  Hierarchy,  yet  so 
confident  am  I,  that  n>' and  f«f  never  signify  Jbr^  or 
^'^Jbr  the  space  qf,^'  that  I  would  almost  promise  to 
lay  aside  my  reason,  and  believe  implicitly  all  that  the 
Doctor  should  tell  me,  if  he  can  produce  an  instance 
where  nj' and  »«,-  signify  yor,  or  *^Jbr  the  space  of.^* 
If  the  Doctor,  as  he  consulted  the  Septuagint,  had 
looked  three  verses  back  of  that  where  he  found  the 
term  ««?,  he  would  have  found  the  same  word,  c.  vii. 
22.  "until  the  ancient  of  days  came,"  &c.  According 
to  the  Doctor,  the  translation  should  be,  ^'^for^  ox  for 
the  space  of  t\\t  ancient  of  days  came,"  &c.  lam 
^ure  he  will  reject  this  unmeaning  translation. 

5.  The  Doctor  says  that  he  has  met  with  no  ex* 
planation  of  the  1  Ith  chapter  of  Daniel  that  satisfies 
him. 

In  the  general  view  preceding,  we  have,  to  our 
own  satisfaction,  explained  the  first  twenty  verses : 
and  apprehending  that  the  subsequent  characteristics 
were  so  plain,  that  they  could  not  be  misapplied  by 
any  one  conversant  with  history,  and  that  would  pay 
due  attention  to  the  facts  recorded  therein,  and  com- 
pare them  with  the  prophet's  descriptions  of  the  cha- 
racter and  Dynasties  he  exhibits  to  us,  we  passed 
them  over  in  silence  :  we  have  now  paid  more  atten- 
tion to  them.  The  last  twenty-five  verses  of  the 
1 1th  chapter  belong  to  the  rise  of  Mahomet  and  the 


152 

Mahometan  Dynasties,  and  the  wars  between  them 
and  the  eastern  empire. 

The  21st  verse  represents  to  us  a  vile  person 
standing  up  in  the  place  of  the  Roman  Caesars. 
When  Mahomet  rose  up,  the  eastern  empire  em- 
braced all  in  Asia  and  Africa,  that  the  great  Roman 
empire  had  ever  brought  under  its  subjection.  Now, 
if  the  vile  person  mean  Mahomet,  the  wars  mention- 
ed, must  of  necessity  be  in  a  great  measure  be- 
tween him  and  the  eastern  Emperors,  for  there  was 
no  other  power  west  of  the  Euphrates  to  the  Me- 
diterranean, when  Mahomet  rose  up,  A.  D.  622. 

"  Atid  in  his  estate  shall  stand  up  a  vile  person,'''' 
&c.  In  this  verse  we  have  several  remarkable  cha- 
racteristics :  1.  A  vile  person.  2.  The  honour  of 
the  kingdom  is  not  to  be  given  to  him.  3.  He  is  to 
come  in  peaceably  :  4.  to  obtain  the  kingdom.  5. 
He  obtains  it  by  flatteries.  I  know  that  the  most 
learned  and  most  laborious  expositors  have  supposed, 
and  haA^e  endeavoured  to  prove,  that,  *'  the  vile  per- 
son" means  Antiochus  Epiphanius.  But  not  one  of 
the  five  foregoing  characteristics  can,  without  great 
violence,  be  applied  to  him.  Thej'^  all  meet  in 
Mahomet.  He  was,  in  every  sense  of  the  word, 
"  vile,"'  a  vile  person.  2d.  He  erected  a  kingdom 
sword  in  hand — it  was  not  given  to  him  :  his  motto 
ultimately,  not  at  first,  was,  Viam  inveniam,  aut 
faciam.  3d.  He  is  to  come  in  peaceably.  It  does 
not  appear  from  history,  that  Mahomet  had  at  first 
any  ideas  of  going  any  further  than  the  powers  of 
artifice  and  persuasion  would  carry  him ;   he  assum- 


15S 

ed  no  hostile  appearance ;  he  was  eloquent  and  as- 
siduous in  preaching  and  praying;   he  had  prophe- 
sies and  visions,  in  which  there  were  not  any  appear, 
ance  of  a  warlike  plan  for   establishing  an  empire. 
4.  He  is  to  obtain  the  king-doni.     He  and  his  de- 
luded followers  did  obtain  a  great,  a  lasting,  and 
extended  kingdom.     5.  He  obtains  it  by  flatteries. 
History   informs  us,  that   the  Koraish,  a   powerful 
tribe  among  the   Arabians,  and  at  first  bitter  ene- 
mies of  Mahomet,  charge  him  with  the  same  thing. 
Abu  Taleb,  a  chief,  said,  "  Citizens  and  pilgrims, 
listen  not  to  tiie  tempter,  hearken  not  to  his  impious 
novelties."     Mahomet's  most  arduous  work  seems 
to  have  been  that  of  converting  his  own  country- 
men, which  he  did  by  flatteries,  entreaties,  prayers, 
and  supplications.     It  was  a  long   time  before   he 
could  bring  them  to  the  faith,  and  induce  them  to 
break  in   pieces  their  idol  gods.      When  he  had 
thoroughly  instilled  into  their  minds,  that  worship- 
ping idols  Avas   worshipping  the  devil,   he  had  no 
more  trouble   with  his  countrymen^      His   simple 
creed  was — That  there  is  only  one  God,   and    that 
Mahomet  is  the  apostle  of  God.     The  Christians  of 
the  seventh  century  had  fallen  into  idol-worship,  ap 
proximating  to  paganism.    Their  public  and  private 
prayers  were  addressed  to  relics  and  images.     The 
Christian  temples  were  disgraced  with  the  images  ol 
martyrs,  saints,  and  angels,  who  were  the  objects  oi' 
veneration.     The  Collyridian  heretics,  who  flourish- 
ed in- Arabia,  had  invested  the  ^''irgin  Mary  with  thf 

X 


154 

liame,  and  the  honours  of  a  goddess.  The  Impostor 
of  Mecca  rejected  the  worship  of  idols  and  men,  of 
stars  and  planets,  on  the  principle,  that  whatever 
rises  must  set,  whatever  is  born  must  die. 

The  prophet  Daniel  says,  "  And  with  the  arms  of 
a  flood  shall  they  be  overflown  from  before  him,  yea, 
also  the  prince  of  the  covenant.     And  after  the  league 
made  with  him  he  shall  work  deceitfully ;   for  he 
shall  come  up,  and  shall  become  strong  with  a  small 
people.     He  shall  enter  peaceably  upon  the  fattest 
places  of  the  province  ;  and  he  shall  do  that  ^^■hich 
his  fathers  have  not  done,  nor  his  fathers'  fathers  ;  he 
shall  scatter  among  them  the  prey,  and  spoil,  and 
riches  ;  and  he  shall  forecast  his  devices  against  the 
strong  holds,  even  for  a  time.     And  he  shall  stir  up 
his  power  and  his  courage  against  the  king  of  the 
south  with  a  great  army  :  and  the  king  of  the  south 
shall  be  stirred  up  to  battle  with  a  very  great  and 
mighty   army ;    but  he   shall  not  stand :    for   they 
shall  forecast  devices  against  him.     Yea,  they  that 
feed  of  the  portion  of  his  meat  shall  destroy  him,  and 
his  army  shall  overflow,  and  many  shall  fall  down 
slain.     And  both  these  kings'  hearts  shall  be  to  do 
mischief  and  they  shall  speak  lies  at  one  table ;  but 
it  shall   not  prosper ;    for  yet   the   end  shall  be  at 
the  time  appointed.     Then  shall  he  return  into  his 
land  with  great  riches  ;  and  his  heart  shall  be  against 
the  holy  covenant :  and  he  shall  do  exploits  and  re- 
turn to  his  own  land." 

These  characteristics  are,  in  general,  so  plainly 
applicable  to  Mahomet  and  his  followers,  and  to  no 


155 

other  king  or  kingdom  that  ever  existed,  that  it  seems 
ahnost  unnecessary  to  introduce  historic  facts  to  con- 
firm the  idea.  We  will  only  select  a  few,  out  of 
many. 

By  the  King  of  the  south,  we  understand  the  em- 
jx^rors  of  the  eastern  empire.  Though  they  lived 
at  Constantinople,  yet  nearly  the  whole  of  the  empire 
lay  to  the  eastward  and  southward  of  that  city.  Their 
empire  extended  as  fai'  south,  as  the  great  Roman 
empire  did.  Besides,  if  Mahomet  be  the  vile  per  son  ^ 
wc  can  find  none  except  the  eastern  emperors,  that 
^v'ere  kings  of  the  south,  when  he  rose  up. 

These  traits  exactly  suit  Mahomet;  he  became 
sti'ong  with  a  small  people.  He  did  that  which  nei- 
ther his  fathers,  nor  his  fathers'  fathers,  had  done  ;  in- 
timating a  long  and  connected  line  of  ancestors ;  from 
Ishmael  to  Mahomet,  no  such  chai'acter  had  ever 
appeared  among  the  Arabians  as  the  pretended  pro- 
phet. The  prey,  the  spoil,  and  riches,  that,  under 
Mahomet  and  his  successors,  the  Arabians  amassed 
together,  is  almost  incredible.  The  prophet  plainly 
informs  us,  that  the  subjects  of  the  Eastern  Empe- 
ror would  act  hypocritically  and  traiterously ;  but 
of  this,  it  is  not  to  be  expected,  that  we  should  find 
many  historic  facts.  He  says  further,  that  "  both 
these  kings'  hearts  shall  be  to  do  mischief,  and  they 
shall  speak  lies  at  one  table,  but  it  shall  not  prosper."" 
This  fact  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  history.  "  When 
the  emperor  Heraclius,  A.  D.  629,  returned  in  tri- 
umph from  the  Persian  war,  he  entertained  at  Emesa, 
the  Ambassador  of  jVIahomet,  who  invited  the  prin. 


156 

Ces  and  nations  of  the  earth  to  the  profession  of  Is- 
lam. On  this  foundation,  the  Arabians  have  suppos- 
ed the  secret  conversion  of  the  Christian  emperor. 
The  Greeks  pretend  that  there  was  a  personal  visit 
to  the  prince  of  Medina,  who  accepted  from  the 
royal  bounty  a  rich  domain,  and  a  secure  retreat  in 
the  province  of  Syria :  but  the  friendship  of  Hera- 
clius  and  Mahomet  was  of  short  continuance.  The  new 
religion  had  rather  inflamed  than  assuaged  the  rapa- 
cious spirit  of  the  Saracens :  and  the  murder  of  an 
envoy  afforded  a  decent  pretence  for  invading  with 
three  thousand  soldiers,  the  territory  of  Palestine, 
that  extends  to  the  eastward  of  Jordon.  This  was 
the  first  military  attack  that  the  Mahometans  made 
on  a  foreign  enemy — and  we  are  left  in  the  dark, 
whether  the  Romans,  or  the  Mahometans,  were  vic- 
torious."— Gibbon. 

An  expedition  for  the  conquest  of  Syria  was  stop- 
ped by  the  death  of  Mahomet,  A.  D.  632.  His 
successor,  the  first  Caliph,  was  Abubeker,  who,  as 
:>oon  as  he  was  settled  in  the  government,  dispatched 
a  circular  letter  to  the  Arabian  chiefs  :  "In  the  name 
of  the  most  merciful  God,  to  the  rest  of  the  true  be- 
lievers, &c.  This  is  to  acquaint  you,  that  I  intend 
to  send  the  tme  believers  into  Syria,  to  take  it  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  infidels." 

In  his  instructions  to  the  chiefs  of  the  army,  he 
says,  "  Avoid  injustice  and  oppression ;  let  not  your 
victory  be  stained  with  the  blood  of  women  and  chil- 
dpcn  :  destroy  ro  palm  trees,  nor  bum  any  fields  of 
i'Ai\n.     Cut  down  no  fruit  trees,  nor  do  any  mischief 


15V 

to  cattle,  only  such  as  }ou  kill  to'cat.  When  yoii 
make  any  covenant,  or  bargain,  stand  to  it,  and  be 
as  good  as  your  word.  As  you  go  on,  you  will  find 
some  religious  persons,  who  have  retired  in  Monas* 
teries,  and  propose  to  themselves  to  serve  God  that 
way  :  let  them  alone  ;  neither  kill  them,  nor  destroy 
their  Monasteries.  And  you  will  find  another  sort 
of  people  that  belong  to  the  Synagogue  of  Satan, 
who  have  shaven  crowns  ;  be  sure  }ou  cleave  their 
skulls,  and  give  them  no  quarter  till  they  either  turn 
musselmen  or  pay  tribute." 

"  One  of  the  fifteeii  provinces  of  Syria,  was  called 
by  the  Romans,  Arabia.  It  w^as  covered  with  a  line 
of  forts.  The  citizens  of  Gerosa,  Philadelphia,  and 
Bosra,  were  populous  and  secure,  by  the  solid  struc- 
ture of  their  walls.  Bosra  could  send  forth  from  her 
gates  12000  horse — a  detachment  of  4000  Moslems 
presumed  to  summon  and  attack  the  fortress.  They 
were  oppressed  by  the  Syrian  numbers :  but  Caled, 
w'ith  1500  horse  coming  to  aid,  them,  restored  the 
battle.  Confident  in  their  strength,  the  people  of 
Bosra  threw  open  their  gates,  drew  their  forces  out 
Into  the  plain,  were  defeated.  The  ramparts  of  Bosra, 
in  expectation  of  human  or  divine  aid,  were  crowned 
widi  crosses  and  consecrated  banners  ;  but  they  were 
betrayed  by  Romanus  the  governor,  who  renounced 
the  Christian  religion,  and  embraced  the  faith  of 
Mahomet.  A.  D.  633^  the  Mahometans  besieged  Da- 
mascus. This  place  had  lately  received  a  reinforce- 
ment of  5000  Greeks;  and  had  the  promise  of  speedy 
succour.     The  defence  was  spirited,  and  the  siege 


ISS 

was  buspenfled  till  the  Mahometans  had  given  bat- 
tie  to  the  Emperor's  army.  The  importance  of 
gaining  a  victory  over  that  army,  required  the  junc- 
tion of  all  the  Saracens  on  the  frontiers  of  Syria 
and  Palestine.  One  of  the  circular  letters  which 
was  addressed  to  Amron,  the  future  conqueror  of 
^gypt>  was  as  follows : — "  In  the  name  of  the  most 
merciful  God.  Calid  to  Amron,  health  and  happi- 
ness. Know  that  thy  brethren,  the  ^loslems,  design 
to  march  to  Aiznaidin,  where  there  is  an  army  of 
70;000  Greeks,  who  purpose  to  come  against  us, 
that  they  may  extinguish  the  light  of  God  with  their 
mouths.  But  God  preserveth  his  light  in  spite  of 
the  infidels.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  this  letter  shall 
be  delivered  to  thy  hands,  come  with  those  that  are 
with  thee,  to  Aiznaidin,  where  thou  shalt  find  us,  if 
it  please  the  most  high  God." 

"  The  summons  was  cheerfully  obeyed ;  45,000 
Moslems  met  on  the  same  day,  on  the  same  spot, 
which  they  ascribed  to  the  blessing  of  providence. 
The  battle  was  fought  July  13th,  633,  about  four 
years  after  Heraclius  had  triumphed  over  the  Per- 
sians. He  had  assembled  an  armv  of  70,000  men  at 
Hems  or  Emisa.  The  troops,  chiefly  cavalry,  might 
be  indifferently  called  Syrians,  Greeks,  or  Romans. 
On  the  plains  of  Aiznaidin,  a  venerable  Greek  in  the 
presence  of  both  armies,  advanced  with  a  liberal  of- 
fer of  peace,  and  the  departure  of  the  Saracens  would 
have  been  purchased  by  a  gift  to  each  soldier,  of  a 
turban,  a  robe,  and  a  piece  of  gold  :  ten  robes,  and  a 
hundred  pieces  to  their  leader :  a  hundred  robes,  and 
a  thousand  pieces  to  the  Caliph." 


159 

"  A  smile  of  indignation  expressed  the  refusal  of 
Calid.  *  Ye  Christian  dogs,  you  know  your  option ; 
the  koran,  tribute,  or  the  sword.'  The  imperial  ar- 
mv  was  defeated.  The  death  of  470  Moslems  was 
eompensated  i^v  the  opinion,  that  they  had  sent  to 
hell  above  50,000  infidels.  The  spoil  was  inestima- 
ble. After  this  battle,  the  Arabs  return  to  the  siege 
of  Damascus,  which,  at  the  end  of  seventy  days,  is 
taken,  partly  by  storm,  and  partly  by  ec^pitulation." 

We  now  appeal  to  the  sober  and  inquisitive  reflec- 
tion of  every  Christian,  and  beg  him  to  point  out 
what  material  difference  there  is  between  the  profane, 
and  the  prophetic  history,  as  last  quoted  :  for  we  can- 
not  percei^-e  any. 

The  prophet  proceeds,  verses  30.  35, — "  For  the 
ships  of  Chittim  shall  come  against  him  ;  therefore, 
he  shall  be  grieved,  and  return",  and  have  indignation 
against  the  holy  covenant :  so  shall  he  do :  he  shall 
even  return,  and  have  intelligence  with  them  that 
forsake  the  hoh"  eo^'enant.  And  arms  shall  stand  on 
his  part,  and  they  shall  pollute  the  sanctuary  of 
strength,  and  shall  take  away  the  daily  (offerings,)  and 
they  shall  place  the  abomination  that  maketh  deso- 
late. And  such  as  do  wickedly  against  the  covenant, 
shall  be  cori'upt  by  flatteries  :  but  the  people  that  do 
know  their  God,  shall  be  strong  and  do  exploits. 
And  they  that  understand  among  the  people,  shall 
instruct  many  :  yet  they  shall  fall  by  the  edge  of  the 
sword,  and  by  flame,  and  by  captivity,  and  by  spoil, 
many  days.  Now,  when  they  shall  fall,  they  shall 
be  holpen  with  a  little  help,  but  many  shall  clea^  c  to 


160 

them  with  flatteries ;  and  some  of  them  of  under- 
standing shall  fall,  to  try  them,  and  to  purge,  and  to 
make  them  white,  even  to  the  time  of  the  end." 

This  passage  is  a  continuation  of  the  warlike  and 
successful  exploits  of  the  vile  person.  By  the  ships 
of  Chittim  we  are  to  understand,  the  ships  of  Graecia. 
'  The  battle  of  Yermack  is  famous.  The  Emperor 
Heraclius,  A  D.  636,  had,  from  the  provinces  oi 
Europe  and  Asia,  transported,  by  sea  and  by  land,  to 
Antioch  and  Caesaria,  80,000  men.  The  light  troops 
of  the  Arabian  army  consisted  of  60,000  Arabs,  of 
the  tribe  of  Gassan.  Heraclius'  orders  were  pe- 
remptory, that  the  fate  of  the  province,  and  war, 
sh',juld  be  decided  by  a  single  battle.  A  report  of 
these  mighty  preparations  was  conveyed  to  the  Ara- 
bian camp  at  Emesa.  Caled  was  for  retreating  to 
the  skirts  of  Palestine  and  Arabia,  to  wait  for  the 
succour  of  their  friends.  A  speedy  messenger  from 
the  throne  of  Medina,  came  with  the  blessings  of 
Omar  and  Ali ;  the  prayers  of  the  widow  of  the  pro- 
phet ;  and  a  reinforcement  of  8000  Moslems.  The 
exhortation  of  the  Saracen  generals  was  brief  and 
forcible, — "  Paradise  is  before  you^  and  hell-jire  in 
your  rear  V  Yet  such  was  the  weight  of  the  Roman 
cavalry,  that  the  right  wing  of  the  Arabian  army 
was  broken,  and  separated  from  the  main  body. — 
Thrice  they  retreated  in  disorder,  and  were  rallied 
again.— Four  thousand  and  thirty  Moslems  were 
buried  in  the  field  of  battle ;  but  it  was  decisive 
against  the  Emperor. — Many  thousands  of  the  Greeks 
and  Syrians  fell  bv  the  sword.  "  We  killed  oftliem,'* 


161 

says  Abu  Obeidah  to  the  Caliph,  "  1 50,000/and  made 
prisoners  40,000,"  These  numbers  are  no  doubt 
exaggerated  :  but  after  this  battle,  the  Roman  army- 
no  longer  appeared  in  the  field.  And  the  Saracens 
might,  at  this  time,  safely  choose,  among  the  forti- 
fied towns  of  Syria,  which  they  would  first  attack. 
Their  choice  fell  upon  Jerusalem,  which  submitted 
to  the  conquerors,  A.  D.  637. 

In  the  victorious  days  of  the  Roman  Republic,  it 
had  been  the  aim  of  the  senate  to  confine  their  con- 
suls and  legions  to  a  single  war,  and  completely  to 
suppress  a  first  enemy,  before  they  provoked  the  hos- 
tilities of  a  second.  These  timid  maxims  were  dis- 
dained by  the  .magnanimity  or  enthusiasm  of  the 
first  Caliphs.  With  the  same  vigour  they  invaded 
the  successors  of  Augustus,  and  those  of  Artax- 
erxes ;  and  rival  monarchies,  at  the  same  instant,  be- 
came the  prey  of  an  enemy  that  they  had  so  long 
been  accustomed  to  despise.  In  the  ten  years  of 
Omar's  administration,  the  Saracens  reduced  to  their 
obedience  36,000  cities  or  castles ;  destroyed  4000 
temples  of  the  Christians  ;  and  erected  1400  Moschs 
for  the  exercise  of  the  religion  of  Mahomet.  One 
hundred  years  after  his  flight  from  Mecca,  the  arms, 
and  the  reiga  of  his  successors  extended  from  India 
to  the  Atlantic  ocean,  over  the  various  and  distant 
provinces  which  may  be  comprised  under  the  names 
©f,  1.  Persia.  2.  Syria.  3.  Egypt.  4.  Africa.  5.  Spain. 
Thus  we  see  plainly,  that  the  prophet's  descriptions 
do  not  exceed  the  historic  account  of  the  wonderful 


162 

exploits  of  the  vile  person  and  Ws  successors.  I  pre- 
sume no  divine  will  say,  that  Mahomet  was  not  against 
the  prince  of  the  covenant,  and  against  the  holy  co- 
venant itself;  meaning  thereby,  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  covenant  of  grace  in  the  New  Testament  of  hb 
blood :  nor  that  when  the  prophet  says,  "  that  the 
vile  person  shall  forecast  his  devices  against  the  strong 
holds,  even  for  a  time^^"  or  360  ye^s,  that  the  Sara-- 
cenic  delusion  is  not  intended,  seeing  profane  history 
precisely  establishes  the  fact.  The  Mahometans  have, 
for  1188  years,  polluted  the  sanctuary  of  strength ; 
denied  the  Saviour  of  the  world ;  put  an  end  to  the 
daily  offerings  of  Christians ;  and  have  placed  the  abo* 
mination  that  maketh  desolate,  spoken  of  by  our  Sa- 
viour. After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Vespa- 
sian, there  was  a  Christian  Church  in  Jerusalem,  spo- 
ken highly  of  by  the  Fathers,  till  the  conversion  of 
Constantine ;  and  he  added  greatly  to  its  beauty  and 
splendour,  and  probably  to  its  corruptions. 

The  prophet  says,  "  but  the  people  that  do  know 
their  God  shall  be  strong,  and  do  exploits.**  If  this 
be  not  a  clear  vindication  of  defensive  war,  resistance 
even  unto  blood,  I  know  not  what  construction  to  put 
upon  the  words.  If  these  Christians  had  permitted 
the  Mahometans  to  have  murdered  them  without  re- 
sistance, it  would  indeed  have  been  doing  exploits  of 
the  negative  kind. 

The  prophet  having  given  a  history  of  the  warlike 
exploits  of  the  Mahometans,  as  well  as  the  rise  of 
Mahomet,  from  the  21st  to  the  35th  verse,  he  goes 
on  to  give  us  several  pointed  characteristics  of  thie 


163 

vHe  person,  and  his  deluded  followers.  *'  jln^  the 
king  shall  do  according  to  his  will."  These  emphati* 
cal  words  are  used  twice  before :  once  in  this  11th 
chapter,  where  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  they  are  ap- 
plicable  to  Alexander  the  Great ;  see  verse  3.  "  And 
a  mighty  king  shall  stand  up,  that  shall  rule  with 
great  dominion,  and  do  according  to  his  will."  Also 
die  16th  verse.  "  But  he  that  cometh  against  him, 
shall  do  according  to  his  own  will."  Alexander,  the 
Roman  Commonwealth,  and  Mahomet,  are  the  only 
powers  of  whom  it  is  said,  that  they  did  according 
to  their  will.  Mahomet's  exploits  were  more  similar 
to  the  two  former,  than  to  any  other  powers.  They 
made  their  way,  sword  in  hand,  and  so  did  Mahomet; 
his  exploits  are  not  eclipsed  by  the  splendour  and 
greatness  of  their  achievements. 

The  remaining  part  of  the  chapter,  except  the  40th 
verse,  is  so  clearly  applicable  to  the  Mahometans, 
that  we  will  make  no  comments  thereon. 

The  40th  verse  is,  *'  and  at  the  time  of  the  end 
shall  the  king  of  the  South  push  at  him :  and  the 
king  of  the  North  shall  come  against  him  like  a 
whirlwind,  with  chariots  and  horsemen,  and  with 
many  ships:  and  he  shall  enter  into  the  countries, 
and  shall  overflow  and  pass  over." 

By  these  words,  "  at  the  time  of  the  end,"  we 
understand  the  end  of  the  Eastern  empire.  As  we 
have  before  shown,  that  when  Mahomet  rose  up,  the 
emperors  of  the  eastern  empire  were  the  kings  of  the 
South,  so  here  we  find  that  they  continue  to  be  thus 
called.     The  Tile  person  has  not  been  geographically 


164 

described  as  a  northern,  southern,  eastern,  or  west- 
ern king,  till  we  come  to  this  verse.  And  it  could 
not  have  been  done  with  any  propriety ;  for  the  em- 
pire was  not  always  geographically  the  same ;  and 
the  seats  of  the  chiefs  of  the  empire  were  frequently 
changed.  The  Turkish  Mahometans  were  a  north- 
em  nation,  who  put  an  end  to  the  Eastern  empire  ; 
therefore  their  king  is  very  properly  called  the  king 
of  the  North.  It  is  well  known,  that  originally  ca- 
valry, and  not  infantry,  constituted  the  Turkish  ar- 
mies. After  taking  Constantinople,  which  they  could 
not  do  without  passing  the  Bosphorus,  they  passed 
over  still  further  into  Europe,  a  considerable  part  of 
which  they  now  hold. 

These  arguments  do,  in  my  humble  opinion, 
unanswerably  establish  the  fact,  that  the  vile  person  in- 
tends Mahomet.  And  if  so,  the  power  that  is  op- 
posed to  him  must  be  the  Eastern  empire. 

6.  There  is  a  plain  distinction  in  English  between 
a  hill  and  a  mountain ;  also  between  the  term  mount 
and  mountain.  We  meet  with  the  terms  Mount  Aven- 
tine,  but  not  Mountain  Aventine.  The  Roman  writ- 
ers spake  hyperbolically  often,  with  respect  to  the 
city  of  Rome.  If  a  hill  and  a  mountain  were  not  sy- 
nonymous expressions  with  them,  as  I  presume  they 
were  not,  then  I  should  think  that  we  ought  to  trans- 
late "  septimontium  festus,"  Xht  festal  day  of  the  se- 
ven mounts.  The  fact  is  incontestible,  that  Rome  was 
not  built  on  seven  mountains,  unless  the  term  moun- 
^ain  be  taken  in  a  very  inferior  sense.  I  still  think, 
I  hat  when  authors  describe  the  city  of  Rome  geo- 


165 

graphically,  they  never  say  that  it  was  built  on  scvai 
mountaifis. 

It  is  acknowledged  that  John  says,  that  the  seven 
heads  are  seven  mountains  ;  and  I  am  confirmed  in 
the  opinion,  that  the  term  mountain,  means  here  a 
great  empire  :  to  this  it  is  objected,  "  If  tnountains 
here  be^  as  yon  say  they  are^  symbolical,  we  must  con- 
clude ^  the  angel  explained  one  symbol  by  another  syfn- 
bol.'^  "  Then  the  ten  kings y  which  the  angels  de- 
clare to  be  explanatory  of  the  ten  horns,  are  also 
symbolical,  not  meaning  ten  kingdoms,  but  some- 
thing, else,  for  the  discovery  of  which  we  have  no 
clue." 

I  am  fully  persuaded,  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
manuscript  I  submitted  to  the  Doctor,  that  laid  any 
foundation  for  these  two  sentences.  I  humbly  con- 
ceive that  explaining  one  symbol  by  another  symbol, 
is  no  explanation  at  all.  I  have  said,  that  mountain 
means,  a  great  empire.  Here  the  symbol  ends ;  the 
thing  intended  by  the  symbol  is  found  out.  I  have 
said  the  term  horn^  means  a  kingdom  or  Dynasty ; 
and  here  the  symbol  ends.  Will  it  follow  from  my 
thus  saying,  that  I  explain  one  symbol  by  another 
symbol  ?  Surely  it  will  not.  The  alignment  seems 
to  be  this,  if  the  term  mountain,  be  the  symbol  for  a 
great  empire,  then  the  term  kingdom  is  the  symbol 
for  a  horn. 

If  I  have  represented  the  great  whore  as  sitting  on 
seven   kings,   I  think  my  meaning  will  appear  to 


166 

have  been,  that  she  sat  on  seven  great  empires  in 
succession.     What  she  sits  on,  the  texts  tell  us  ;  and 
it  is  quoted  correctly.     The  great  whore  is  a  sym- 
bolical term.  If,  according  to  the  Doctor,  it  mean  an 
apostate  Church,  this  Church  is  the  beast  which  sits 
on  itself;    for  he  must  own  that  the  temporal  and 
ecclesiastic  beast  are  but  one  person  or  character. 
The   Doctor    candidly  confesses  that    the  idea  is 
strongly  impressed  upon  his  mind,  "  that  this  empire 
is  the  Roman,  which  has  existed  under  seven  forms 
of  government."     I  confess  freely,  that  after  examin- 
ing with  attention  all  that  has  been  said  by  exposi- 
tors, in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  there  were  seven 
different  forms  of  government  in  the  City  of  Rome, 
I  am  thoroughly  convinced  that  profane  history  is 
against  the  opinion.     But  if  it  were  not,  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  clearly  and  infallibly  points  out  another 
manner  of  finding  out  the  seven  heads.      Daniel 
mentions  the  Roman  republic  as  a  Dynasty  only,  and 
the  raiser  of  taxes,  (that  is,  the  Roman  Emperors,) 
stand  up  in  his  estate.     The  beast  with  seven  heads 
and  ten  horns,  was  represented  in  vision  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar by  the  image  of  a  man.     If  it  were  ne- 
cessary, I  would  introduce  what  authors  have  said  in 
support  of  their  opinion ;  that  there  were  seven  forms 
of  government  in  Rome.     I  apprehend,  however,  it  is 
not :  because  if  my  method  of  computing  the  heads 
be  clearly  supported  by  the  prophets,  any  other  me- 
thod must  be  against  them.     I  cheerfully  submit 


167 

my  argnmcnts  to  the  critical,  but  candid  examination 
of  Christians. 

I  make  no  remarks  on  what  the  Doctor  says  about 
the  two  witnesses ;  being  persuaded  that  my  general 
view  places  them  correctly ;  that  is,  before  the  end 
of  the  second  wo  trumpet,  which  unquestionably  ter- 
minates in  Asia. 

When  I  submitted  the  manuscript  to  Doctor  Ro- 
meyn,  I  had  very  cursorily  looked  over  Faber.  I 
found  that  he  was  extremely  tedious  on  things  that 
appeared  to  me  to  be  of  minor  consideration  ;  his 
reasoning  incorrect,  and  his  assumptions  visionary. 
I  have  since  perused  him  with  a  little  more  attention. 
The  following  objections,  in  my  humble  opinion,  are 
imanswerably  against  his  system.  . 

I.  He  assigns  to  the  little  horn,  Dan.  vii.  which 
rose  up  after  the  ten  horns,  a  full  period  of  1260 
years,  in  order  to  confine  the  characteristic  discrip- 
tions  of  the  little  horn  entirely  to  the  Papacy. 

To  this  it  is  objected,  that  neither  the  Hebrew, 
nor  Septuagint  translation,  in  Greek,  will  admit  of 
this  translation  in  English,  "  for  the  space  of  1260 
years."  And  the  characteristics  of  the  little  horn 
cannot  be  found  in  the  Papal  Church. 

II.  Faber  assumes,  that  the  saints  were  delivered 
to  the  doubly  symbolical  Papal  po\ver  precisely  in 
the  year  606,  in  which  ye^  he  supposes  that  Pho^as, 
the  Eastern  emperor,  usurper,  and  tyrant,  made  the 
Papal  Hierarchy,  a  temporal  l,)east. 


168 

1.  It  is  objected  that  the  prophecies  give  no  precise 
beginning  or  ending  to  the  Papal  authority ;  whe- 
ther temporal,  or  ecclesiastical. 

2.  It  is  objected,  that  Faber,  by  assuming  the  year 
606,  is  driven  to  the  necessity  of  denying  God's  su- 
perintending providence  in  preserving  uncorrupted, 
very  important,  and  indeed,  essential  parts  of  prophe- 
cy ;  and  of  having  recourse  to  that  fountain  of  cor- 
ruption, the  Septuagint,  in  order  to  establish  his  sys- 
tem. It  is  true  that  606,  and  1260,  make  1866.  Iix 
this  year,  he  says,  the  doubly  symbolical  beast  will 
end — (there  can  be  no  question  now  about  its  actually 
having  ended  in  1809.)  Daniel  has  said,  that  from 
the  commencement  of  a  certain  vision  there  would 

7/3  00  be  2|00  days,  or  years,  to  the  cleansing  the  sanctuary, 
as  we  have  it  in  our  common  version,  of  the  bible ;  the 
Septuagint  has  2400 :  and  Jerome  had  seen  some 
copies  that  had  2200.  Faber  counts  back  from  1866, 
and  finds  that  2200,  would  begin  A.  C.  334;  2300, 
A.  C.  434 ;  and  2400,  A.  C.  534.  Now,  the  least 
number  carries  us  back  to  the  commencement  of 
Alexander's  empire,  nearly,  when  Faber  supposes 
the  vision  commenced ;  therefore,  instead  of  the  num- 
ber of  days  bing  2300,  as  it  is  in  our  bibles,  it  should 
be  2200  days ;  on  such  a  visionary  foundation  he 
erects  a  mighty  fabric. 

3.  Faber  employs  many  pages  to  prove,  that  the 
^ittle  horn  which  arises  out  of  one  of  the  four  king- 
doms into  which  Alexander's  sea  or  empire,  wob  di- 


169 

vidcd,  intends  Mahomet ;  making  a  leap  of  900  years^ 
to  get  at  him.  The  absurdity  is  too  manifest  to 
dwell  upon  it  at  all. 

4.  Faber's  long  and  laboured  discussion  respecting 
the  two  homed  beast  in  Rev.  c.  xiii.  is,  in  great  part, 
very  little  to  the  purpose,  and  some  of  it  very  incor- 
rect. The  beast  with  two  horns  like  a  lamb,  is  part 
of  one  head ;  the  beast  is  one  :  one  of  the  horns  like 
a  lamb,  he  says,  intends  spiritual  power ;  the  other 
horn  like  a  lamb,  intends  civil  power.  He  says,  we 
have  here  a  double  symbol.  But  both  horns  are  like 
a  lamb  ;  which,  then,  is  the  spiritual,  and  which  the 
civil,  or  horn  of  a  wild  beast,  and  not  of  a  lamb  ? 
These  ideas  surely  are  incorrect.  The  plain  history 
of  the  prophet  seems  to  be  as  follows  :  having  finish- 
ed his  prophecies  respecting  the  Mahometans  and 
the  Eastern  empire,  he  goes  back,  and  commences 
vv  ith  the  rise  of  the  Western  empire,  of  which  he 
had  not  before  given  any  account.  At  its  rise  it  was 
imperial,  though  not  one  half  of  the  great  Roman 
Sea.  It  however  rose  out  of  the  Sea ;  that  is,  the 
Roman  empire.  Of  the  head  that  was  wounded, 
John  has  given  an  account,  in  the  fourth  trumpet; 
where  we  find,  that  the  line  of  Csesars  terminates  A. 
D.  476.  John,  in  several  of  the  first  verses  of  this 
chapter,  gives  us  general  descriptions  of  the  tyranny 
that  would  be  exercised  in  the  Western  empire  for  a 
long  period  of  time. — "  And  power  was  given  unto 
him  to  continue  forty  and  two  months."  The  Greek 
is  to  make  war  forty-two  months ;  which  implies, 

7' 


170 

that  It  shall  possess  a  considerable  portion  of  power 
for  that  period,  but  not  so  much  afterwards.  There 
is  no  intimation  that  the  power  will  then  end.  Now, 
as  the  beast  that  rises  out  of  the  sea,  and  the  two 
horned  beast,  are  closely  connected  together  ;  and  as 
John,  before  he  has  a  vision  of  the  two  homed  beast, 
says,  that  the  power  shall  make  war  forty -two  months, 
all  the  three  must  be  embraced  by  that  period ;  and 
if  so,  it  must  commence  at  the  division  of  the  great 
Roman  Sea,  A.  D.  392  ;  and  of  course  it  terminated 
1652 ;  at  which  time  Oliver  Cromwell  made  the 
Vatican  itself  tremble.  Since  the  year  1652,  the 
Papal  power  has  gradually  declined,  till  it  ended, 
1809.  We  do  firmly  believe,  and  we  think  that  it  is 
demonstrable,  that  the  Papal  power  has,  no  where  in 
prophecy,  assigned  to  it  1260  years.  In  the  Revek' 
lions  there  are  four  distinct  periods  of  1260  years ; 
first,  the  witnesses,  and  the  first  woman  in  the  wil- 
derness ;  these  are  synonymous  terms.  Second,  the 
Mahometan  power,  designated  by  the  term  Gentiles, 
who  are  to  tread  under  foot  the  holy  city,  forty-two 
months.  Third,  the  beast  with  two  horns  like  a  lamb, 
in  the  13th  chapter.  These  three  diiferent  periods  syn- 
chronize only  in  part.  The  period  of  the  witnesses 
commences  at  the  time  of  the  ascension  of  our  Saviour, 
and  ends  1295.  The  beast  that  rises  out  of  the  sea, 
and  the  two  horned  beast,  commence  A.  D.  392,  and 
cease  to  be  powerful  after  1652.  The  Mahometan 
beast  commences  A.  D.  630,  and  will  terminate  A. 
D. 1890. 


171 

4.  The  second  woman  Avhich  is  to  be  nourished 
from  the  face  of  the  serpent  1260  years,  we  suppose 
means  a  Church  in  the  millennian  state. 

God  only  knows  how  far  I  am  coiTcct  in  my  ideas ; 
and  God  forbid  that  I  should  impose  them  on  any 
one. 


AN 


EXAMINATION 


THE  IDEAS  THAT  HAVE  BEEN  AFFIXED  TO  THE  TERMS 


POWER  AND  WILL. 


TO  ISAAC  OSGOOD,  Esct. 

MY  DEAR  BROTHER, 

I  DEDICATE  the  following  remarks  to  you.  I  know 
that  you  think  for  yourself,  and  that  you  are  capable 
to  think  for  yourself.  As  to  some  of  the  doctrinal 
points  of  our  holy  religion,  I  am  sensible,  that  we  dif- 
fer in  opinion;  perhaps,  some  would  say  essentially. 
But  I  trust,  you  will  not  say  that  I  differ  from  you  es- 
sentially :  and  I  assure  yoii  that  I  do  not  pretend  to  be 
an  infallible  judge,  as  to  religious  controversies.  I 
have  no  right  to  demand  that  you  shall  assent  to  the 
creed  which  I  make  for  myself. 

I  am,  my  dear  brother. 

Yours  affectionately, 

S.  OSGOOD. 


AN 

EXAMINATION, 

CHAPTER  I. 

SECTION    I. 

ir/iat  the  idea  of  power,  and  how  we  come  by  it. 


I 


T  has  been  said,  by  the  most  respectable  autho- 
rity, that  wc  get  the  idea  of  power,  by  the  sensible 
alterations  of  our  simple  ideas,  which  we  observe  in 
things  without  us :  and,  in  the  next  place,  by  ob- 
serving what  passes  in  our  own  minds,  and  reflecting 
on  the  constant  change  of  ideas,  by  the  impression  of 
outward  objects  on  the  senses,  and  sometimes  by  the 
determination  of  its  own  choice.  Thus  it  is  said  that 
we  come  by  the  idea  called  power.  If  it  were  true, 
that  we  acquired  the  idea  of  power  in  these  three  dis- 
tinct different  ways,  and  mere  change  of  simple  ideas, 
as  observed  in  outward  or  material  objects,  impressed 
the  idea  on  our  minds,  still  we  may  ask.  What  is  pow- 
er? But  we  observe,  that  in  the  alteration  of  our 
simple  ideas,  the  mind  discovers  no  activity,  and 
that  if  it  acquires  an  idea  of  power  in  this  way,  there 
must  be  more  kinds  of  po\^'er  than  one ;  or  nomi- 


176" 

nal  powers,  which  are  in  fact  no  powers  at  all.  It 
will  be  said,  that  there  must  be  something  to  operate 
upon  external  objects,  so  that  they  produce  in  us 
different  simple  ideas  from  what  we  had  before  per- 
ceived, and  that  this  something  may  be  denominated 
power.  We  grant  that  it  may,  provided  nothing  more 
is  meant  by  the  term,  than  a  mere  aptitude  in  one 
portion  of  matter,  to  operate  upon,  and  produce  a 
change,  in  another  portion  of  matter.  If  this  be  not 
an  improper  use  of  the  term  power,  yet  we  must  be 
extremely  cautious,  lest  we  affix  a  wrong  idea  to  the 
term  power,  thus  used.  There  is  another  source 
from  which  we  acquire  the  idea  of  real  power ;  which 
is,  the  brute  creation.  But  though  we  are  assured 
that  they  are  creatures  of  God,  we  know  nothing  of 
the  internal  structure  of  the  brute  creation,  and  we 
cannot  separate  their  power  from  their  instinctive  or- 
ganization, or  whatever  it  may  be  called.  We  now 
have  the  third  way  in  wliich  the  idea  of  power  is  ac- 
quired, to  examine  ;  which  is,  volitions  and  acts 
consequent  thereon.  By  the  term  volition,  I  mean 
nothing  more  than  a  thought,  different  from  what  the 
mind  had,  previous  to  its  existence.  And  by  power 
in  an  intelligent  creature,  I  mean  something  that  can- 
not, even  in  thought,  be  separated  from  thought.  The 
idea  of  this  power  is  acquired  only  by  experience. 

SECTION    II. 

TFill  and  Understanding  are  not  tivo  powers. 

WE  find  in  ourselves  a  power  to  begin,  continue, 
and  put  an  end  to  several  of  our  mental  actions  and 


177- 

bodily  motions,  merely  by  a  thought  of  the  mind. 
Thinkini^,  implies  knowledge  and  understanding; 
for  without  it  they  cannot  exist :  and  the  will  being 
but  a  mere  mode  of  thinking,  it  is  impossible  that 
the  will  and  the  understanding  should  be  two  distinct 
and  differcnt  powers  in  the  mind^  man,  soul,  or  agent. 
I  find  that  Locke  and  Edwards  use  all  these  terms 
synonymously  with  the  term  will:  if  they  have  af- 
fixed any  precise  idea  to  it  that  does  not  embrace  the 
whole  man,  I  have  searched  their  works  in  vain  to 
find  it.  Locke  gives  us  the  following  definition  of 
the  terms  will  and  volition  : — "  This  power  which 
the  mind  has  thus,  to  order  the  consideration  of  any 
idea,  or  the  forbearing  to  consider  it,  or  to  prefer  the 
motion  of  any  part  of  the  body  to  its  rest,  and  vice 
versa,  in  any  particular  instance,  is  that  which  we 
call  will:  the  actual  exercise  of  that  power,  or  its 
forbearance,  is  that  which  we  call  volition,  or  willing.^'* 
By  the  definition  of  tlie  term  will,  it  seems  to  be  al- 
together a  dormant  power ;  and  that  it  can  only  be 
discovered  by  acts  of  volition.  The  learned  author 
preceding  this  definition,  had  told  us,  that  we  find  in 
ourselves  a  power  to  begin,  &:c.  barely  by  a  thought 
or  preference  of  the  mind,  ordering,  or  as  it  were, 
commanding  the  doing  of  an  action.  If,  by  the  term 
power  here,  be  meant  the  will,  and  I  do  not  know 
what  else  it  can  mean,  then  we  find  that  a  thought 
of  the  mind  orders  and  commands  this  power,  or 
the  will ;  and  the  will  then  chooses.  But  why  may 
not  a  thought  of  the  mind  order  choice,  or  volition, 

2   A 


178 

without  any  such  intermediate  power  as  the  will? 
And  why  does  the  learned  author,  soon  after  his  de- 
finition of  the  will,  say,  that  it  is  that  which  com- 
mands every  other  faculty  of  the  soul  ?  Our  ideas 
are  these  ;  that  the  terms  -will  and  volition,  mean  no- 
thing more  nor  less,  than  modifications  of  thinking. 
And  we  lay  it  down  as  a  principle,  that  there  are  three 
modes  of  thinking,  which  every  one  must  experience 
in  himself.  First — objects  are  viewed  by  the  mind 
simply,  without  any  preference  or  choice  about  them. 
Second — they  are  viewed  with  preference  and  choice. 
When  the  mind  has  made  its  choice,  the  act  of  voli- 
tion is  complete.  But  if  the  object  of  choice  be  not 
immediately  obtained,  then  follows  the  third  mode  of 
thinking  ;  which  is,  a  fixed  determination  to  acquire 
the  object :  and  this  mode  of  thinking  I  call  wilL 
When  the  mind  has  once  made  a  choice,  it  never  re- 
peats it :  it  is  an  instantaneous  act  of  the  mind.  But 
the  object  chosen  may  require  a  great  length  of  time 
to  obtain  it ;  and  duriaig  the  time,  there  is  a  will  to 
obtain  it.  The  learned  author  says,  *'  whatever  ac-* 
tion  is  performed  without  a  thought  of  the  mind,  is 
called  involuntary."  From  all  this  I  conclude,  that 
will  and  understanding  are  not  two  distinct  powers  of 
the  mind  :  for  understanding  is  defined  to  be  the 
power  of  perception ;  and  perception  and  thinking 
are  so  nearly  synonymous,  that  it  is  extremely  diffi- 
cult, if  not  impossible,  to  make  any  distinction  be- 
tween them. 


179 

SECTION    III. 

Multiplying  faculties  in  the  mi?id  is  a  source  of  great 
confusion. 
FACULTY  is  a  term  so  frequently  and  so  gene- 
rally used,  that  it  may  be  thought  strange,  if  we  sug- 
gest that  it  has  no  precise  meaning.     When  it  is  said, 
that  the  understanding  and  the  wiil  are  two  faculties 
of  the  mind,  no  reason  can  be  given  for  calling  them 
so ;  because  we  have  shown  already,  that  the  rviil  is 
not  any  thing  distinct  from  the  understanding.     And 
further,  the  understanding  is  a  real  existence ;  and 
the  will  has  no  existence  exclusive  of  the  understand- 
ing.    It  is  said  that  the  understanding  is  that  in  us 
which  perceives ;  it  must  therefore  be  that  in   us 
which  prefers  :  for  preference  can  be  nothing  else, 
except  a  particular    kind    of  perception.       Locke 
seems  to  think,  that  the  understanding  is  not  a  real 
being  in  the  soul.     That  the  term  faculty^  applied 
to  that  and  the  ivill^  has  been  the  occasion  of  much 
confusion  in  men's  thoughts,  by  being  supposed,  (as 
he   suspects   it  has  been,)    to  stand  for  some  real 
beings    in    the   soul,  that   perform   the  actions    of 
imderstanding  and   volition.     If  faculty,   or  under- 
standing,  and   will,  be   but   mere  creatures  of  the 
mind,  yet  it  is  certain,  that  there  is  some  real  exist- 
ence in  the  soul,  that  perceives  and  prefers ;  and  this 
existence  cannot  be  divided  into  two  distinctly  dif- 
ferent principles  of  action,  without  making  use  of 
terms  that  must  be  destitute  of  meaning ;  and  of 
course  be  an  improper  foundation  for  any  kind  of 
superstructure. 


180 

It  is  said  by  Metaphysicians,  that  the  will  is  the 
commanding'  and  superior  faculty  of  the  soul ;  that 
it  is  not  free ;  that  it  determines  the  inferior  faculties  ; 
and  that  it  follows  the  dictates  of  the  understanding. 
I  should  be  glad  to  be  informed,  what  is  meant  by 
the  terms,  inferior  faculties :  for  I  cannot  affix  any 
idea  to  them.  And  I  do  not  see  with  what  propri- 
ety the  will  can  be  called  the  commanding  and  su- 
perior faculty  of  the  soul,  when  it  is  acknowledged 
that  it  is  a  subordinate  faculty,  and  follows  the  last 
dictate  of  the  understanding.  Whether  the  term 
mind  be  not  an  abstract  term,  that  has  no  independ* 
ent  existence,  is  a  question  of  some  importance  ;  but 
apprehending  that  it  is  such  a  term,  I  shall,  when  I 
use  it,  mean  thereby  the  real  existing  power  of  the 
soul ;  expressed  by  thinking  or  perceiving — choos- 
ing, and  the  luill ;  and  thus  I  apprehend  we  may 
conduct  our  thoughts  more  by  the  evidence  of  things, 
than  the  mere  sound  of  words ;  and  thus  shall  wc 
find  that  there  is  no  real  occasion  for  using  the  term 
faculties,  otherwise  than  as  a  mere  abstract  term,  so 
far  as  it  relates  to  the  operations  of  the  soul, 

SECTION   IV. 

WE  are  told  that  every  one  finds  in  himself,  a  pow- 
er to  do,  or  not  to  do :  to  begin,  or  forbear,  con- 
tinue, or  put  an  eod  to  several  actions.  And  tl^at, 
from  the  extent  of  this  power  over  the  actions  /6i  a 
man,  arise  the  ideas  of  liberty  and  necessity. 

Rest  is  the  natural  state  of  all  material,  and  immate- 
rial bodies.    To  put  them  in  motion,  requires  what  is 


181 

called  power ;  but  to  be  at  rest,  requires  no  power 
\vhate\er.    \\'hen  therefore,  it  is  said,  that  we  find  in 
ourselves  a  power  to  do,  and  a  power  not  to  do,  there 
is  a  deception,  or  a  plain  contradiction ;  for  the  in- 
stant that  a  power  ceases  to  do,  it  is  in  a  dormant  state, 
and  the  man  or  the  agent  is  at  rest,  as  to  the  particu- 
lar action  he  was  engaged  in  :  so  that  it  is  not  only 
unnecessar}-,  but  impossible,  that  there  should  be  a 
power  to  do,  and  a  power  not  to  do.     Liberty,  and  its 
opposite,  necessity,  can  only  be  predicated  of  the  pow- 
er to  do ;  and  not  of  the  power  not  to  do,  which  is  no 
power  at  all.    I  cannot  conceive  how,  from  the  extent 
of  the  power  of  the  mind  over  the  actions  of  a  man, 
arise  the  ideas  of  liberty  and  necessity.     Liberty  is 
predicated  of  power,  without  taking  into  considera- 
tion its  extent.     What  then  is  its  opposite,  necessity^ 
except  a  negative  on  power?     We  are  told  that  all 
the  actions  of  which  \xc  have  any  ideas,  reduce  them- 
selves to  two,  viz.  thir.kwg  and  motion  ;    and  that, 
so  far  as  a  man  has  power  to  think,  to  move,  or  not 
to  move,  according  to  the  preference  of  his  mind, 
so  far  he  is  free.     Liberty  and  freedom,  are  circum- 
stances attending  power ;  not  to  mov&,  requires  no 
power.     And  where  no  power  is  exercised,  there  is 
no  liberty  or  freedom.     It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  as 
proper  to  say  that  a  mim  is  free,  according  as  he  has 
power  to  think,  or  not  to  think,  as  it  is  to  say,  he  is 
free,  according  as  he  has  power  to  move,  or  not  to 
move  ;  because  motion  implies  thinking,  and  no  mo- 
tion does  not.     Now,  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  a  man 
has  a  power  to  think,  or  not  to  think ;  and  equally 


182 

so,  to  say  that  a  man  has  a  power  to  mbve,  and  a 
power  not  to  move.  The  power  of  doing  and  mov- 
ing, is  a  positive  existing  power ;  but  a  power  not 
to  do,  and  not  to  move,  is  a  negative  power,  and  is 
therefore,  a  non-existence.  Now,  freedom  and  li- 
berty cannot  be  predicated  of  non-existences;  and 
therefore  cannot  be  predicated  of  not  doing  and  not 
moving.  It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  when 
any  thing  is  proposed  to  the  mind  to  be  done,  there 
are  always  two  propositions  in  the  mind ;  one  to  do, 
and  the  other  not  to  do.  But  this  cannot  be  a  fact ; 
a  proposition  not  to  do,  seems  to  me  to  carry  its  own 
absurdity  with  it. 

If  the  idea  meant  to  be  conveyed  by  the  term  ne- 
cessity, be  this,  that  after  volition  has  actually  ta- 
ken place,  the  action  intended  to  be  produced,  cannot 
be  produced  ;  we  will  only  observe,  that  this  makes 
necessity  consist  merely  in  the  want  of  bodily,  or  ani- 
mal strength ;  the  extent  of  which,  we  can  only  find 
out  by  experience.  It  is  a  fact,  that  men  often  at- 
tempt to  lift  a  weight  which  their  bodily  strength 
does  not  enable  them  to  lift :  the  man,  however, 
chose  to  make  the  attempt.  The  mind  often  thinks 
to  perform  operations,  where  no  bodily  strength  is 
required,  but  fails  in  the  attempt.  For  example,  ma- 
ny have  thought  that  they  could  find  out  longitude, 
but  have  failed  in  the  attempt ;  so  that  it  is  true  that 
necessity  takes  place,  as  well  where  mental  ability, 
as  where  bodily  strength  fails.  Experience  teaches  us, 
that  we  have  but  a  very  limited  extent  of  knowledge  ; 
and  where  knowledge  fails  us.  we  are  necessarily  desti- 


183 

tute  of  it.  It  seems  to  be  universally  granted,  that, 
where  there  is  no  thought,  no  volition,  no  will,  there 
can  be  no  liberty  :  but  it  is  said  that  all  these  may  be, 
and  }et  that  tliere  may  be  no  liberty.  If  liberty  be  a 
peculiar  property  of  thought,  volition,  and  will ;  and 
if  liberty  cannot  be  where ihese  are  not;  I  do  not 
sec  how  these  can  be  where  liberty  is  not.  I  think 
it  may  be  laid  down  as  a  certain  truth,  that  wherever 
there  is  thought,  volition,  and  will,  there  is  liberty 
to  the  extent  of  them.  Liberty  is  not  an  independ- 
ent existence  itself;  it  is  unquestionably  a  quality 
of  some  real  existence,  and  that  real  existence  must 
cease  to  be,  before  liberty  ceases  to  be  a  quality  of 
it:  and  thinking,  volition,  and  will,  must  cease  to 
be,  before  liberty  can  cease  to  be  a  quality  of  them. 
We  may  therefore  conclude  with  certainty,  that  li- 
berty, is  not  a  power  in  the  mind. 

SECTION    V. 

That  which  thinks  noty  has  no  liberty ^  is  not  a  free 
agent ;  both  its  motion  and  rest  come  under  the 
idea  of  necessary  ^  and  are  so  called. 

THIS  proposition  is  so  evidently  true,  that  we 
scarcely  need  to  say  any  thing  about  it.  It  is  to  me 
a  self-evident  proposition. 

As  far  as  the  power  of  thinking  is  abridged,  so  far 
also  is  liberty  abridged  :  and  no  other  composition, 
except  that  of  thinking,  can  enter  into  our  idea  of 
liberty.  If  we  should  suppose  that  there  are  two 
distinct  powers  in  the  mind,  one  of  thinking  and  the 
odier  of  loco  motion,  we  caimot  suppose  that  they 


184 

are  equal  powers,  because  this  Avould  destroy  the 
harmonious  operations  of  the  mind.  The  loco  mo- 
tive power  cannot  be  compared  with  the  thinking 
power,  because  we  have  no  data  whereby  the  com- 
parison can  be  made.  Instinctive  operations  will 
afford  us  no  ideas  in  this  respect.  There  is  no  doubt 
but  many  of  the  actions  of  a  man,  are  merely  instinct- 
ive operations,  and  cannot  be  placed  to  account  of  ra- 
tional thinking-  Matter  thinks  not ;  therefore  it  is  not 
a  free  agent :  but  something  thinks ;  and  that  some- 
thing is  a  free  agent. 

SECTION     VI. 

Liberty  cannot  be  separated  from  volition. 

I  AM  sensible  that  it  is  said  by  the  most  respect- 
able authority  that  liberty  does  not  belong  to  volition  ; 
and  the  following  argument  is  adduced  in  support  of 
the  idea.  "  Suppose  a  man  be  carried  whilst  fast 
asleep  into  a  room,  where  is  a  person  he  longs  to 
see  and  speak  with,  and  be  there  fast  locked  in,  be- 
yond his  power  to  get  out :  he  awakes,  and  is  glad 
to  find  himself  in  so  desirable  company,  which  he 
stays  willingly  in ;  that  is,  he  prefers  his  stay  to 
his  going  away :  I  ask,  is  not  this  voluntary  ?  I  think 
no  body  will  doubt  it :  and  yet  being  locked  fast  in, 
it  is  evident  he  is  not  at  liberty  not  to  stay :  he  has  not 
freedom  to  be  gone ;  so  that  liberty  is  not  an  idea  be- 
longing to  volition,  or  preferring :  but  to  the  person 
having  the  power  of  doing,  or  forbearing  to  do,  ac- 
cording as  the  mind  shall  choose  or  direct.  Our 
idea  of  liberty  reaches  as  far  as  that  power,  and  no 


185 

ftirther.  For  Wherever  restraint  comes  to  check  thai 
power,  or  compulsion  takes  away  that  indiffercncy 
of  ability  on  either  side,  to  act,  or  to  forbear  acting, 
there  liberty  and  our  notion  of  it  presently  ceases." 
Locke,  Chap.  21.  Sec.  10. 

This  is  a  very  intricate  passage,  and  requires  close 
examination :  and  we  hope  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  argument  does  not  touch  the  proposition,  be- 
cause there  is  no  volition  in  the  case  stated.  The 
man  fast  asleep  has  no  volition,  as  to  being  in  the 
room  fast  locked.  In  it  he  prefers  staying  to  going 
away,  but  no  volition  is  necessary  for  his  staying, 
because  he  is  there,  and  pleased  with  being  there. 
But  he  is  fast  locked  in,  and  could  not  get  out  if  he 
thought  to  do  it,  or  had  a  volition  about  it.  If  he 
knew  he  were  fast  locked  in,  he  could  not  think  how 
to  get  out ;  and  if  he  had  a  volition  to  get  out,  that 
volition  must  be  something  entirely  exclusive  of 
thinking ;  but  there  can  be  no  volition  without  think- 
ing upon  the  precise  object  chosen,  and  the  means 
to  obtain  the  object  must  occupy  our  thoughts  and 
volitions;  otherwise,  thinking  and  choosing  would 
be  nugatory.  The  man  thus  locked  in,  has  liberty 
to  stay.  There  is  no  restraint  of  his  liberty  in  this  re- 
spect ;  but  he  is  restrained  as  to  going  away ;  and 
the  restraint  in  this  respect  is,  that  he  cannot  think 
how  to  get  away  :  his  mind  furnishes  him  with  no 
means  by  which  he  can  get  out.     Therefore,  unless 


2  B 


186 

there  may  be  volition  where  there  is  no  thinking,  the 
argument  adduced  in  support  of  the  proposition,  viz. 
**  hberty  does  not  belong  to  volition,"  affords  not 
the  least  support  to  it.  We  therefore  deny  the  con- 
sequence, "  so  that  liberty  is  not  an  idea  belonging 
to  volition  or  preferring."  Yet,  Locke  has  said,  iar 
the  8th  Section,  "  so  that  liberty  cannot  be,  where 
there  is  no  thought,  no  volition,  no  will."  But  here 
he  says  liberty  does  not  belong  to  volition,  but  to  the 
person  having  the  power  of  doing,  or  forbearing  to  do, 
according  as  the  mind  shall  choose  or  direct.  The 
absurdity  here,  I  think,  must  be  manifest :  the  mind 
first  chooses  and  directs  the  person  having  the  pow- 
er, and  yet  the  mind  is  not  free  in  choosing ;  but 
the  person  having  the  power,  though  commanded 
and  dictated  to  by  the  mind,  is  free ;  but  the  mind 
is  not  free.  By  the  words,  "  person  having  the  pow- 
er,''* \X.  is  apparent  that  power  must  intend  mere  ani- 
mal strength,  and  nothing  else :  and  consequently, 
a  man  is  free  in  exact  proportion  to  the  animal 
strength  he  possesses,  if  there  be  in  fact  any  such  in- 
dependent existing  power.  In  this  view  Sampson 
had  more  liberty  than  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  *any 
other  man.  Locke  says,  "  our  idea  of  liberty  reach- 
es as  f^r  as  that  power,  and  no  further. "  But  what 
is  meant  by  the  words,  that  power,  is  past  my  find- 
ing out:  because  it  seems  to  intend  an  operating 
power  that  is  subsequent  to  the  minds  choosing ;  and 
that  it  is  to  carry  into  full  effect,  the  choice  of  the  mind 


187 

after  it  is  made.     Thus  libeity  is  banished  from  the 
mind  of  man.     It  is  further  said,  that,   "  wherever 
resti"aint  comes  to  check  that  power^  or  compulsion 
takes  away  that  indiffercncy  of  ability  on  either  side, 
to  act,  or  to  forbear  acting,  there  liberty  and  our  no- 
tion of  it  presently  ceases."     The  liberty  of  think- 
ing cannot  be  checked  or  restrained  by  bolted  doors, 
or  fetters  of  iron :  so  that  restraint  on,  or  check  to 
power,  must  mean  some  other  power,  than  that  of 
thinking :  for  this,  in  a  well  organized  human  body, 
cannot  be  so  totally  restrained  as  to  have  no  liberty. 
I  humbly  conceive  that  the  following  words,  are  en- 
tirely destitute  of  any  rational  meaning:  "Compul- 
sion takes  away  that  indifferency  of  ability  on  cither 
side,  to  act,  or  forbear  acting."     We  will  only  ob- 
serve here  again,  that  to  forbear  to  act,  requires  no 
act  of  the  mind. 

SECTION    VII. 

Jt  is  said  that  voluntary^  is  opposed  to  invohmtary — in 
other  words y  an  act  of  tJie  mind  is  opposed  to  that 
which  is  no  act  of  the  mind. 

NOW,  how  an  existence  can  be  opposed  to  a  non- 
existence, exceeds  my  abilities  to  find  out.  Volun- 
tary is  said  not  to  be  opposed  to  necessity,  or  neces- 
sary. The  opposite  of  voluntary,  be  it  what  it  may, 
Avill  afford  us  no  idea,  as  to  what  voluntary  is.  It 
appears  to  me  that  it  is  extremely  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible, to  make  a  clear  distinction  between  invo- 


18S 


iuntary,  and  necessary.  An  involuntary  action,  in  a 
being  that  is  possessed  of  mind,  is  as  necessary,  as 
the  motion  of  a  tennis-ball,  when  struck  by  the 
racket. 


SECTION   VIII.  'SC!/ 

WHAT  is  liberty  ?  I  answer,  that  it  is  not  an  ex- 
istence of  itself,  any  more  than  whiteness,  or  yellow- 
ness ;  it  is  a  circumstance  of  the  mind,  and  as  the 
state  of  the  mind  is,  so  liberty  may,  or  may  not  be 
predicated  of  it.  Metaphysicians  seem  constantly 
to  make  a  distinction  between  the  motions  of  the  bo- 
dy, and  the  invisible  operations  of  the  mind;  but 
what  it  consists  in,  we  are  not  told.  It  is  acknow- 
ledged that  the  motions  of  the  body  depend  on  a 
ihought  of  the  mind ;  and  that  where  we  have  power 
to  take  up,  or  lay  aside  any  thought,  according  to 
the  preference  of  the  mind,  we  have  liberty.  But 
the  taking  up  one  idea,  necessarily  implies  the  lay- 
ing aside  of  another,  and  making  two  acts  of  volition, 
necessary  to  take  up  a  new  idea ;  that  is,  one  to  take 
it  up,  and  another  to  lay  it  aside,  is  laying  a  foun- 
dation for  endless  confusion.  The  idea  that  is  laid 
aside,  is  necessarily  laid  aside.  Liberty  is  not  a  cii'- 
cumstance  of  laying  aside,  but  of  taking  up  the  new 
idea ;  otherwise  there  must  be  a  positive,  and  a  ne- 
gative idea  of  liberty,  which  is  a  palpable  absurdity. 
We  therefore  object  to  the  following  sentence — 
''  When  the  mind  has  power  to  stop  or  continue,  be- 


189 

gin,  or  forbear,  any  of  those  motions  of  the  body, 
or  tlioughts  of  the  mind  witJun,  according  as  it  tiiiiiks 
fit  to  prefer  either  to  ^c  other,  we  consider  the  man 
as  a  free  agent."  A  man  is  unquestionably  a  free 
agent,  who  can  act  as  his  mind  directs,  or  chooses 
to  act.  It  is  impossible  that  liberty  should  be,  or' 
consist  in  a  positive  power  to  do,  and  a  positive  pow- 
er not  to  do. 

SECTION    IX. 

"  WHEREVER  thought  is  wholly  wanting,  or 
the  power  to  act,  or  forbear,  according  to  the  direc- 
tion of  thought,  there  necessity  takes  place." 

We  observe  here,  that  necessity  takes  place  when 
any  one  of  three  things  is  wanting :  first,  thought ; 
second,  power  to  act;  and  third,  power  to  forbeai' 
acting.  And  here  power  is  made  a  distinct  thing 
from  the  power  of  thinking :  and  a  power  to  forbear, 
being  a  negative  power,  must  be  a  distinct  thing 
from  either  of  the  other  two.  Thought  is  "wanting 
in  gold.  Does  necessity  take  place  in  gold?  It  is 
necessarily  what  it  is.  Necessity  takes  place  in  the 
fallen  angels,  who  are  confined  by  the  Almighty 
power  of  God.  But  this  is  a  kind  of  necessity,  very 
distinct  from  that  which  takes  place  where  thought 
is  wholly  wanting ;  and  implies  compulsion  and  re- 
straint. Indeed,  I  do  not  see  but  that  compulsion 
and  restraint  are  a  species  of  necessity.  Thought  is 
wholly  wanting  in  the  Headien,  as  to  the  Gospel 
system  of  salvation ;  and  accordingly,  necessity  takes 
place  in  them  ;  that  is.  they  are  necessarily  ignorant 


190 

of  the  terms  of  salvation  contained  in  that  system, 
I  cannot  think  that  we  ought  to  carry  our  ideas 
further  than  this.  Necessity  takes  place  as  to  a  mo>-. 
ral  being,  when  he  is  in  a  disagreeable  or  painful  situ- 
ation, and  is  unable  to  think  of  any  means  that  will 
relieve  him  from  his  situation.  In  this  case,  thought 
is  wholly  wanting.  And  where  thought  is  wholly 
wanting,  power  is  equally  so ;  which  is  an  evidence, 
that  power  and  liberty  belong  to  thinking  alone. 

I  am  sensible  that  it  is  said,  that  in  an  agent  capa- 
ble of  volition,  where  the  beginning  or  continuation 
of  any  action  is  contrary  to  the  preference  of  the 
mind,  it  is  calUed  compulsion  :  and  that,  where  the 
hindering  or  stopping  any  action  is  contrary  to  his 
volition,  it  is  called  restraint.     Compulsion,  there- 
fore, consists  in  our  being  compelled  to  act  contrary 
to  our  choice  ;  and  restraint  consists  in  our  not  being 
permitted  to  act  according  to  our  choice.     Adam 
was  compelled  to  leave  the  Garden  of  Eden ;  and 
Ahab  was  restrained  from  killing  the  prophet.     It 
was  impossible,  in  either  case,  to  be  otherwise.    The 
compulsion  and  restraint  were  the  same  as  necessity. 
There  may  therefore  be  thought,  volition,  and  willj 
where  the  moral  agent  labours  under  the  greatest  ne- 
cessity ;  but  then  these  do  not  reach  his  particular 
necessity  :  and  it  might  be  better  for  him  not  to  have 
thought  and  volition,  than  to  have  them.     Locke 
says,  "  that  agents  that  have  no  thought,  no  volition 
at  all,  are  in  every  thing  necessary  agents."    I  should, 
however,  conclude,  that  in  every  thing  they  are  no 


•A 


\9X 

agents.     The  racket  which  strikes  a  tenTiis-ball  is  an 
instrument,  but  not  an  agent. 

SECTION    x. 

I  HAVE  compared,  with  all  tlie  attention  I  am 
capable  ot",  what  Locke  says  in  his  14th  section,  and 
21st  chapter,  with  what  preceded  it ;  and  as  this  sec- 
tion seems  to  be  a  general  inference  from  what  hcv 
had  before  said,  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  the  pre- 
mises do  not  warrant  the  inference.  He  says,  "  If 
this  be  so,  (as  I  imagine  it  is,)  I  leave  it  to  be  consi- 
dered, whether  it  may  not  help  to  put  an  end  to  that 
long  agitated,  and  I  think,  unreasonable  question, 
viz.  Tfhether  man's  will  be  free  or  no  ?  For,  if  I 
mistake  not,  it  follows  from  what  I  have  said,  that 
the  question  itself  is  altogether  improper ;  and  it  is 
as  insignificant  to  ask,  whether  a  man's  will  be  free, 
as  to  ask,  whether  his  sleep  be  swift,  or  his  virtue 
square  :  liberty  being  as  litde  applicable  to  the  will,  as 
swiftness  of  motion  is  to  sleep,  or  squareness  to  vir- 
tue. Every  one  would  laugh  at  the  absurdity  of 
such  a  question,  as  either  of  these  ;  because  it  is  ob-> 
vious^  that  the  modifications  of  motion  belong  not 
to  sleep,  nor  the  difference  of  figure  to  virtue.  And 
when  any  one  well  considers  it,  I  think  he  will  as 
plainly  perceive,  that  liberty,  which  is  but  a  power, 
belongs  only  to  agents,  and  cannot  be  an  attribute  or 
modification  of  the  will,  which  is  also  but  a  power." 

Locke,  in  the  6th  Section,  says,  that  the  ordinary 
way  of  speaking  is,  that  the  understanding  and  will  are 
two  faculties  of  the  mind:  and  intimates. that  those  whQ 


192 

dallthem  so,  conduct  their  thoughts  more  by  the  sound 
of  words,  than  the  evidence  of  things.  In  the  8th  Sec- 
tion he  says,  "  All  the  actions  we  have  any  idea  of, 
reduce  themselves  to  these  two ;  viz.  thinking  and 
motion;  and  that  so  far  as  a  man  has  a  power  to 
think,  to  move,  or  not  to  move,  according  to  the  pre- 
ference of  his  mind,  so  far  is  a  man  free."  We  have 
observed  before  in  part,  and  we  observe  now  more 
fully,  that  to  place  liberty  in  a  power  not  to  move,  is, 
according  to  Locke,  to  place  it  in  that  of  which  we 
have  no  idea.  There  is  no  motion,  no  action,  in  not 
moving.  But  if  we  grant  that  we  have  an  idea  of 
such  a  state,  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  ever  help  us 
to  the  idea  of  liberty ;  because  such  a  state  can  never 
help  us  to  the  idea  of  motion  j  and  where  there  is 
mere  thinking,  without  the  power  of  moving  at  all, 
and  where  no  motion  has  ever  been  perceived,  I 
think  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  be  any  idea  of 
liberty.  Consequently,  the  idea  of  liberty  arises 
from  two  distinct  perceptions  of  the  mind ;  viz. 
thinking  and  motion.  And  where  there  is  the  power 
of  thinking  and  motion,  there  is  liberty.  We  say 
nothing  here  about  human  restraints,  as  they  are 
merely  adventitious. 

We  will  now  examine  this  14th  Section,  which  at 
present  we  think  contains  the  most  unguarded,  un- 
founded opinions,  that  ever  fell  from  the  pen  of  the 
distinguished  author  of  it ;  and  has  no  connexion 
with  any  thing  that  precedes  it,  except  mere  asser- 
tion. He  says  it  is  altogether  improper  to  ask  whe- 
ther a  man's  will  be  free  or  no.     I  confess,  however. 


193 

that  I  see  no  impropriety  in  the  question  :  for  a  man's 
will  is  free,  or  it  is  not  free.  If  the  question  had 
been  put  thus — Is  a  man's  will  free  ?  and  the  learned 
author  had  sho\\'n  that  freedom  is  to  the  will,  as 
motion  is  to  rest;  that  is,  that  they  are  precisely 
contrary^  to  each  other,  he  might  then  say,  that 
it  would  be  as  improper  to  ask  whether  the  will  be 
free,  as  to  ask  whether  sleep  be  swift.  It  is  true, 
that  the  modifications  of  motion  do,  not  belong  to 
sleep  :  but  it  is  not  true,  that  the  modifications  of 
thinking  do  not  belong  to  the  will.  And  this  idea 
the  author  virtually  holds,  in  these  words, — "  So 
that  liberty  cannot  be,  where  there  is  no  thought,  no 
volition,  no  will." 

The  next  argument  is,  "  Liberty  is  but  a  power, 
and  belongs  only  to  agents,  and  cannot  be  an  attri- 
bute or  modification  of  the  will,  which  is  also  but  a 
power."  Thus  liberty  is  a  power,  and  will  is  a 
power.  And  yet  the  author  complains  of  making 
too  many  supposed  distinct  powers  in  the  mind,  as 
having  a  tendency  to  influence  us  to  be  governed  by 
sound,  and  not  by  sense.  Being  well  persuaded, 
that  liberty  is  not  a  power  ;  and  further,  that  any  one 
may,  with  a  little  attention,  plainly  perceive,  that  it  is 
not;  that  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  be.  We 
may  therefore  conclude,  that  predicating  liberty  of 
the  will,  is  not  predicating  one  power  of  another.  We 
take  liberty  to  be  a  mere  property  of  power,  and  not 
power  itself  Figure  constitutes  no  part  of  our  idea 
of  virtue,  but  enters  essentially  into  our  idea  of  bo- 
dy. It  is  not,  however,  body  itself.     The  idea  of 

2    r 


m 

liberty  is  only  acquired,  by  our  experiencing  the  ef- 
fects of  power :  for  restraint,  compulsion,  and  ne- 
cessity, help  us  not  to  the  idea  at  all,  unless  we  will 
say,  that  the  absence  of  a  thing  will  give  us  an  idea 
of  the  thing  itself. 

The  author  says  that  liberty  belongs  only  to 
agents ;  and  thus  makes  an  essential  distinction  be- 
tween the  will  and  an  agent :  one  is  free,  and  the 
other  is  not  free.  But  the  author  himself  makes  the 
will  an  essential  part  of  an  agent.  How  then  can 
that  which  is  an  essential  part  of  an  agent  be  not 
free,  and  yet  the  agent  be  free  ?  To  say  that  the 
agent  is  free,  seems  to  be  only  removing  the  object 
of  our  inquiry  further  from  our  sight.  If  liberty 
cannot  be  an  attribute  of  the  will,  it  must  be  because 
the  will  is  not  really  an  existing  power  in  the  mind. 
But,  that  man  has  something  existing  in  him,  which 
is  properly  called  tvill,  has  been  the  universal  voice 
of  mankind.  At  present,  I  rest  satisfied,  that  the 
term  will  means  one  of  the  simple  modes  of  think- 
ing ;  and  that  liberty  may  be  predicated  properly  of 
all  the  modes  of  thinking;  otherwise  no  rational 
meaning  whatever  can  be  affixed  to  the  term. 

SECTION    XI. 

EVERY  one  must  confess  that  it  is  no  easy  mat- 
ter to  give  clear  notions  of  his  internal  actions  by 
sounds.  Though  we  know  not  how  thinking  is  per- 
formed, yet  we  have  satisfactory  evidence  that  we 
actually  think  ;  and  by  thinking,  we  perceive,  that  in 
ordering,  directing,  choosing,  and  preferring,  thought 


195 

is  constantly  employed ;  and  that  it  is  essentially  re- 
quisite to  their  well  bcin^,  or  that  they  should  be  as 
they  ought  to  be.  \\'e  think  that  the  i^rm.  preferring 
is  a  more  general  term  than  tliat  of  volition  :  and  that 
though  volition  always  implies  preference,  yet  this 
does  not  always  imply  volition.  It  is  said,  that  a 
man  prefers  flying  to  walking,  but  that  he  never  wills 
it.  Having  no  means  whereby  we  can  ascertain  the 
fact,  we  may  safely  say  that  it  is  not  a  fact. 

The  learned  author,  in  his  15th  Section,  says, 
"  Volition,  it  is  plain,  is  an  act  of  the  mind  ;  know- 
ingly exerting  that  dominion  it  takes  itself  to  have 
over  any  part  of  the  man,  by  employing  it  in,  or 
holding  it  from,  any  particular  action.  And  what 
is  the  will,  but  the  faculty  to  do  this?"  Here  the 
will  is  defined  to  be  the  mind,  knowingly  exerting 
actions  of  the  mind.  If  an  agent  has  a  mind,  and 
be  free,  then  if  the  will  be  the  mind,  it  must  also  be 
free.  That  the  will  has  solely  respect  to  a  particular 
state  of  the  mind,  I  have  no  doubt ;  but  I  cannot 
think  that  the  will  is  the  mind,  knowingly  exerting 
actions  of  the  mind ;  because,  in  this  view  of  the 
matter,  there  can  be  no  distinction  between  will  and 
mind  :  and  yet  the  learned  author  speaks  of  them  as 
essentially  different  things. 

"  And  is  that  faculty,  (will,)  any  more  in  effect 
than  a  power — the  power  of  the  mind  to  determine 
its  thoughts  V 

In  this  sentence  I  do  not  perceive  that  one  power  is 
predicated  of  another  power  ;  but  I  plainly  perceive, 
that  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  power  of  the 


196 

will,  and  the  power  of  the  mind :  so  that  whatever  be 
the  power  of  the  mind,  that  is  precisely  the  power  of 
the  will :  and  if  the  will  be  not  free,  neither  the  mind 
nor  the  agent  can  be  free :  for  I  presume  no  one  will 
say  that  that  can  be  an  agent  which  has  no  mind. 

But  the  power  to  determine  thoughts,  if  it  act  pre- 
viously to  thinking,  and  previous  to  thought,  we  may 
as  well  compare  it  to  the  racket  that  is  made  to  strike 
a  tennis-ball,  as  to  any  other  thing.  This  power,  be 
it  what  it  may,  is  able  "  to  produce,  continue,  or  stop 
any  action,  as  Jar  as  it  depends  on  us.  For  it  cannot 
be  denied,  that  whatever  agent  has  power  to  think  on 
its  own  actions,  and  prefer  their  doing  or  omission, 
either  to  the  other,  has  that  faculty  called  will.  Will, 
then,  is  nothing  but  such  a  power."  By  these  last 
words,  "  such  a  power,"  the  author  must  mean 
"  power  of  the  mind."  The  mind  has  not  power  to 
prefer  and  not  to  prefer  at  the  same  time  ;  and  it  has 
not  power  to  prefer,  or  choose,  more  than  one  thing 
at  a  time.  If  a  man  be  using  bodily  exercise,  and 
chooses  rest,  this  choice  puts  an  end  to  such  exer- 
cise :  so,  if  he  be  at  rest  and  chooses  exercise,  it 
puts  an  end  to  his  rest.  The  acts  of  volition  are 
distinct,  and  employed  about  one  object  at  a  time  ; 
but  never  about  doing  and  not  doing ;  because  it  is 
impossible  that  we  should  choose  to  do,  and  not  to 
do,  at  the  same  time. 

Such,  says  that  learned  author,  is  the  power  of  the 
will.  Now  let  us  see  what  he  says  of  liberty.  "  Li- 
berty, on  the  other  side,  is  the  power  a  man  has,  to 
doj  or  forbear  doing  any  partielar  action,  according 


1 


197 

as  its  doing  or  forbearance  has  the  actual  preference 
of  the  mind,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  to  say,  ac- 
cording as  he  himself  wills  it." 

If  liberty  be  a  power,  it  is  a  power  of  the  mind; 
and  thus  the  power  of  the  mind  is  the  same  as  the 
power  of  the  will,  and  the  power  of  liberty  ;  that  is, 
there  is  no  distinction  between  any  of  them ;  they 
are  all  synonymous  terms.  And  what  may  be  meant 
by  the  words  "  on  the  other  side,"  I  cannot  find  out. 
It  is  apparent,  that  the  author  conveys  this  idea,  that 
when  the  power  of  the  mind  has  performed  its  own 
functions,  then  another  power  executes  the  choice  of 
the  mind.  But  we  have  denied  that  liberty  is  any 
such  power.  And  further  we  have,  and  do  deny, 
that  liberty  is  a  power  at  all :  and  we  are  persuaded 
that  every  reflecting  mind  must  clearly  perceive  that 
it  is  not.  Viewing  liberty  as  a  power,  has  been  the 
occasion  of  endless  debates,  and  nonsense  about  the 
freedom  of  the  will. 

SECTION    XII. 

WE  think  it  will  clearly  follow  from  what  we  have 
said,  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  mind,  exclusive  of 
thinking,  that  determines  thinking,  or  thought :  and 
that  there  is  no  power  in  the  mind  exclusive  of  think- 
ing, that  carries  into  full  execution  the  volitions  of 
the  mind.  As  the  learned  author  has  pursued  the 
same  ideas  to  his  26th  Section,  and  then  undertakes 
to  point  out  what  determines  the  will,  we  will  follow 
him,  after  making  a  remark  or  two. 

Jt  must  be  apparent  to  every  one  that  the  same  ar- 


198 

guments,  with  little  variation,  are  repeated  over  and 
over  again.  And  further  until  we  know  what  ideas 
to  affix  to  the  term  will,  it  will  be  in  vain  to  attempt 
to  find  out  what  determines  the  will. 

The  learned  author,  in  his  16th  Section,  says,  *'  It  is 
j)lain  then,  that  the  will  is  nothing  but  one  power,  or 
ability ;  and  freedom  another  power,  or  ability  :  so  that 
to  ask  whether  the  will  has  freedom,  is  to  ask,  whe- 
ther one  power  has  another  power ;  one  ability  an- 
other ability."  Here  the  learned  author  takes  for 
granted,  without  attempting  to  prove  it,  that  liberty 
or  freedom  is  a  power  of  the  niind,  man,  or  agent. 
We  trust,  however,  that  we  have  already  shown  that 
it  is  not  so. 

"  Who  is  it  that  sees  not  that  powers  belong  to 
agents,  and  are  attributes  only  of  substances,  and  not 
of  powers  themselves?"  Here  it  is  also  taken  for 
granted,  without  an  attempt  to  prove  it,  that  there 
are  more  powers  than  one  in  the  mind,  man,  or 
agent :  for  if  there  is  but  one  power,  that  of  think- 
ing, and  it  cannot  be  divided  into  parts,  this  sentence 
of  the  author  can  have  no  application. 

"  So  that  this  way  of  putting  the  question,  viz. 
whether  the  will  be  free  ?  is  in  effect  to  ask,  whe- 
ther the  will  be  a  substance,  an  agent  ?  or  at  least 
to  suppose  it,  since  freedom  can  properly  be  attribu- 
ted to  nothing  else.*'  If  the  soul  of  man  be  a  sub- 
stance or  substratum,  inherent  in  which  is  a  pecu- 
liar power;  I  cannot  conceive  how  liberty  can  be 
an  attribute  of  that  substance,  and  not  of  the  power 
itself.     The  soul  of  man  impUes  substance,  or  sub- 


199 

stratum,  for  the  power  that  inheres  in  it.  Now  I 
think  it  is  impossible  that  liberty  should  be  an  at- 
tribute of  the  substance,  and  not  of  the  power  inhe- 
rent in  it.  And  further,  I  think,  that  not  the  sub- 
stance, but  the  power  inherent  in  it,  should  be  an 
agent.  If  agency  belong  not  to  the  power  of  the 
mind,  it  is  impossible  to  say  to  what  it  does  belong 
to  ;  and  if  it  be  improper  to  ask  whether  the  will  be 
free  ?  it  is  equally  improper  to  ask,  whether  the 
mind  be  free  ?  and  if  this  be  an  absurd  question,  be- 
cause the  mind  is  not  free;  then  every  question 
about  freedom  will  be  absurd ;  and  there  can  be  no 
freedom  in  man :  and  how  any  one  came  by  the  idea 
of  that  which  does  not  exist,  must  for  ever  remain  a 
mystery. 

"  If  freedom  can  with  any  propriety  of  speech  be 
applied  to  power,  it  may  be  attributed  to  the  power 
that  is  in  a  man  to  produce,  or  forbear  producing, 
motion  in  parts  of  the  body,  by  choice  or  preference; 
which  is  that  which  denominates  him  free,  and  is 
freedom  itself."  Here  liberty  is  unquestionably  at- 
tributed to  the  power  of  the  mind,  which  directs  the 
parts  of  the  body  as  it  pleases:  but  why  does  the  author 
say,  "  if  freedom  can,  with  any  propriety  of  speech, 
be  applied  to  power?"  I  ask,  whether  it  can  with 
any  propriety  be  applied  to  any  thing  else  ?  If  it  can, 
I  confess  I  have  not  found  out  the  thing  to  which  it 
may  be  applied.  And  notwithstanding  the  author 
ridicules  the  idea  of  asking  the  question  whether 
freedom  be  free ;  and  thinks  the  person  asking  the 
question  deserves  Midas'  enrs :  vet  if  freedom  and 


200 

liberty  are  signs  for  a  power  in  the  mind,  as  the  au- 
thor says  that  they  are ;  then  to  ask  whether  that 
power  be  free,  is  a  proper  question. 

SECTION    XIII. 

"  THE  term  ''faculty,'^  applied  to  the  will,  it  is 
supposed,  has  been  the  "  occasion  of  much  incor- 
rectness as  to  our  ideas  about  the  will ;  because,  it 
leads  us  to  suppose,  that  the  will  itself  acts  ;  which 
disguises  its  true  sense,  and  perplexes  the  mind  with 
-iibsurdities."  But,  if  the  to-rm.  faculty  mean  power 
and  ability,  (and  what  else  it  can  mean  I  know  not,) 
then  to  apply  it  to  the  will  cannot  be  improper,  if  we 
allow  the  will  to  be  any  thing  in  the  mind. 

The  learned  author,  in  his  17th  Section,  says, 
"  However,  the  mime  Jaculty,  which  men  have  given 
to  this  power  called  the  will^  and  whereby  they  have 
been  led  into  a  way  of  talking  of  the  will  as  actings 
may,  by  an  appropriation  that  disguises  its  true  sense, 
serve  a  little  to  palliate  the  absurdity  ;  yet  the  will,  in 
truth,  signifies  nothing  but  a  power,  or  ability,  to 
prefer  or  choose.  And  when  the  will,  under  the 
name  faculty,  is  considered  as  it  is,  barely  as  an  abi- 
lity to  do  something,  the  absurdity  in  saying  it  is 
free,  or  not  free,  will  easily  discover  itself." 

I  readily  confess  I  am  not  able  to  understand  this 
passage,  so  as  to  make  any  sense  of  it :  for  these 
words,  "  the  will  as  acting^''''  clearly  hold  up  the 
idea,  t|;iat  the  will  docs  not  act.  And  the  following 
words  are  as  explicit  that  the  will  does  act ;  if  pre- 
ferring and  choosing  be  actions,  which  I  presume  no 


201 

one  will  deny — "  The  will,  in  truth,  signifies  no- 
thing but  a  power  or  ability  to  prefer  or  choose.'* 
What  the  next  sentence  amounts  to,  except  to  as 
plain  a  contradiction  as  the  foregoing,  I  do  not  know. 
*'  When  the  will,  under  the  name  of  faculty,  is  con- 
sidered barely  as  aji  ability  to  do  something,  the  ab- 
surdity in  saying  it  is  free,  or  not  free,  will  easily  dis- 
cover itself."  What  that  may  be  which  is  free,  and 
is  not  free,  I  cannot  conceive.  The  idea  of  the  au- 
thor is,  that  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  the  will  either  is, 
or  is  not,  free.  The  author  plainly  holds,  that  the 
will  is,  and  is  not  free.  This  is  the  only  absurdity 
that  easily  discovers  itself  to  me.  After  speaking  of 
tlie  absurdity  of  making  a  speaking,  a  walking,  and 
dancing  faculty,  by  which  those  actions  are  produc- 
ed which  are  but  several  modes  of  motion ;  yet  he 
says,  "  If  those  are  faculties,  we  may  as  well  make 
the  will  and  understanding  to  be  faculties,  by  which 
the  acts  of  choosing  and  perceiving  are  produced ; 
which  are  but  several  modes  of  thinA-ing.''^  Had  the 
author  constantly  adhered  to  the  ideas,  that  choosing 
and  perceiving  are  but  different  modes  of  thinking, 
it  appears  to  me  that  it  would  have  been  impossible 
that  he  should  have  fallen  into  such  a  labyrinth  of 
error,  contradiction,  and  nonsense.  I  presume  no 
one  vv  ill  say,  that  we  may  not,  with  strict  propriety, 
ask,  whether  the  modes  of  thinking  are  free  ?  And  I 
should  think  it  would  be  absurd  for  any  one  to  take 
the  negative  side  of  the  question.  If  the  faculties  of 
singing  and  dancing  were  two  distinct  faculties  in 

2   D 


202 

the  mind,  both  of  them  might  be  exercised  at  one 
and  the  same  time.  But  the  modes  of  thinking,  in 
order  of  time,  follow  one  another,  and  cannot  be  ex- 
ercised at  one  and  the  same  time.  Simple  thinking  is 
one  mode  of  thinking ;  preferring  and  choosing,  ac- 
cording to  the  author,  is  another  mode  of  thinking ; 
and  the  state  of  the  mind,  in  the  pursuit  of  the  ob- 
ject, after  the  choice  is  made,  is  a  third  mode  of 
thinking :  and,  at  present,  I  apprehend,  these  are  all 
the  modes  of  thinking. 

SECTION    XIV. 

IT  sometimes  happens,  that  they  who  caution  us 
against  errors,  fall  into  them  themselves.  Much  is 
said  in  order  to  impress  on  our  minds  the  propriety 
and  necessity  of  not  multiplying  faculties  and  powers 
in  the  mind  :  but  it  is  equally  proper  not  to  define 
the  power  of  the  mind  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave 
no  power  in  it.  We  are  told  that  the  power  to  do  an 
action  is  not  operated  upon  by  the  power  of  doing 
another  action.  And  this  necessarily  supposes  more 
powers  than  one  in  the  mind  ;  which  is  certainly  in- 
correct. And  also,  that  the  power  of  thinking  ope- 
rates not  on  the  power  of  choosing,  no  more  than  the 
power  of  dancing  on  the  power  of  singing;  and 
*'  this  is  it  which  we  say,  when  we  thus  speak,  that 
the  will  operates  on  the  understanding,  and  the  un- 
derstanding on  the  will.'*  I  do  not  perceive  but  this 
makes  two  distinct  faculties  or  abilities  in  the  mind ; 
nor  that  it  can  be  reconciled  with  what  had  been  said, 
viz.  that  choosing  and  perceiving  are  but  several 


203 

modes  of  thinking.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  these 
words  have  little  or  no  sense  in  them,  however  true 
they  may  be  : — "  the  power  of  thinking  operates  not 
on  the  power  of  choosing ;"  that  is,  the  power  of 
thinking  does  not  operate  on  itself:  for  this  is  the 
amount  of  what  is  said ;  and  we  do  not  gain  any  new 
idea  by  it. 

It  is  ver>'  gratuitously  granted,  that  this  or  that  ac- 
tual thought  may  be  the  occasion  of  volition,  or  ex- 
ercising the  power  a  man  has  to  choose ;  or  the  ac- 
tual choice  of  the  mind,  the  cause  of  actual  thinking 
©n  this  or  that  thing.     If  thought  may  be  the  occa- 
sion of  volition  or  choosing,  it  will,  I  think,  follow 
from  this,  that  choosing  is  not  a  mode  of  thinking, 
as  the  author  has  said  that  it  is :  we  grant  that  there 
may  be  thinking  without  volition,  but  there  cannot 
be  volition  without  thinking.     I  do  not  see  how  the 
actual  mode  of  thinking  can  be  the  cause  of  actual 
thinking  on  this  or  that  thing  :  for  this  would  make 
choice  precede  all  ideas  of  the  object  chosen  ;  which 
is  a  palpable  absurdity ;  for  it  is  making  one  thought 
choose  another  thought,  before  it  is  perceived.     But 
it  is  said,  that  in  this  it  is  not  one  power  that  ope- 
rates on  another ;  it  is  tlie  mind  that  operates  and  ex- 
erts these  powers  ;  it  is  the  man  that  does  the  action ; 
it  is  the  agent  that  has  power,  or  is  able  to  do.  Here 
it  is  \aken  for  granted,  that  there  are  more  powers 
than  one   in  the  mind,  in  the   man,   in  tlie  agent. 
When  it  shall  be  proved  that  there  are,  perhaps  we 
may  assent  to  what  is  here  said.     The  ?nindj  the 
man^  the  agent,  are  one:  but  the  power  exerted  i^ 


204 

not  one :  but  why  not,  we  are  not  told.  We  arc 
toid  that  powers  are  relations,  not  agents.  How  are 
powers  relations?  How  njany  relative  powers  are 
there  ?  For,  if  there  be  but  one  power,  viz.  that  of 
thinking,  it  can  hyve  no  relation  to  any  other  power, 
except  that  of  the  Deity.  The  soul  has  power  to 
perceive  objects,  by  the  instrumenti»,lity  of  the  eye ; 
and  to  hear  sounds  by  that  of  the  ear :  and  if  these 
be  two  powers,  I  pray  to  know  what  may  be  the  re- 
lationship between  them  ?  And  if  that  which  has  the 
power,  or  not  the  power,  to  operate,  is  that  alone 
which  is,  or  is  not  free  ;  and  if  freedom,  or  not  free- 
dom, can  belong  to  nothing  but  what  has,  or  has  not, 
a  power  to  act,  I  pray  to  know  how  it  is  possible  to 
predicate  freedom  of  any  thing  but  the  power  that 
acts  ?  And  if  there  may  be  any  other  thing  that  it 
may  be  predicated  of,  I  pray  to  know  what  that  thing 
is  ?  for  to  say  that  it  is  the  man,  the  agent,  does  not 
elucidate  the  matter  at  all.  The  man,  the  agent,  is 
nothing  without  power  ;  and  if  freedom  be  predica- 
ble  of  the  man,  the  agent,  without  power,  it  may 
with  propriety  be  predicated  of  a  non-entity.  The 
mind  or  soul  thinking,  is  in  the  exercise  of  the  pow- 
er of  thinking ;  and  if  it  had  not  such  power  of 
thinking,  it  would  not  think  at  all.  The  thinking 
power  is  a  graduated  power ;  and  freedom  is  in  ex- 
act proportion  to  its  graduation. 

SECTION    XV. 

THE  argument  of  the  learned  author,  in  his  20th 
Section,  should  have  proved  to  us  the  proposition 


205 

first  laid  down  ;  viz.  Liberty  belongs  not  to  the  will. 
But  1  do  not  perceive  that  what  is  said,  is  either  for 
or  against  the  proposition.  If  the  term  faculties  has 
had  improper  ideas  affixed  to  it ;  if  they  have  been 
spoken  of  as  so  many  distinct  agents  in  man  ;  it  af- 
fords no  evidence  that  the  will  is  not  free.  Some- 
thing in  man,  it  is  acknowledged,  is  free  ;  and  whe- 
ther that  which  is  free,  be  the  will,  or  something  else, 
seems  to  me  to  be  of  ^•cry  trivial  consequence.  The 
man  is  free ;  but  what  is  he  free  to  do  ?  To  will  ? 
No,  says  the  author ;  but  the  will  is  the  commanding 
power  of  the  soul,  and  is  not  free.  All  the  freedom 
then  a  man  has,  is  to  obey.  It  is  stated  that  an  intel- 
ligent being  has  a  will,  and  that  it  is  essentially  neces- 
sary to  him  :  yet  that  that  essentially  necessary  thing 
is  not  free. — This  is  a  mystery,  as  yet  unexplained. 

In  the  2 1  st  Section  we  have  a  fallacious  reason 
given,  why  it  is  not  proper  to  ask,  whether  die  will 
be  free ;  but  whether  the  man  be  free.  I  say  falla- 
cious, because,  if  the  reason  proves  that  the  man  is 
free,  it  also  proves  that  the  will  is  free ;  it  being  im- 
possible to  separate  a  man  from  his  will.  If  we  al- 
low the  man  to  be  free,  but  not  the  will,  it  is  only 
saying  that  the  man  has,  and  that  the  will  has  not, 
power ;  and  that  freedom  is  not  applicable  to  that 
which  has  no  power.  And  if  the  man  be  free,  it  is 
enough ;  and  why  need  we  perplex  ourselves  any 
further  about  the  matter  ?  The  answer  here  is  easy. 
If  metaphysicians  and  polemic  writers  always  used  the 
term  ivill^  not  intending  thereby  any  power  whatever 
in  the  n\ind,  ^ve  might  safely  stop  here ;  but  the  fact  is. 


206 

that  they  insensibly,  or  without  consideration,  fall  in- 
to  the  error  of  using  the  term  xvill,  for  the  man  :  and 
when  it  is  incautiously  used  for  the  term  man,  it  is, 
notwithstanding,  considered  as  having  no  power  ;  it 
is  not  free.     I  am  convinced  that  there  is  some  ex- 
istence in  the  mind,  that  at  times  may  properly  be 
called  will ;  and  that,  be  it  what  it  may,  it  is  as  free 
as  the  man.     I  say  at  times  :  for  though  the  power 
may  be  permanent,  it  is  not  always  in  a  state  of  ex« 
ercise  ;  and  if  it  be  the  third  mode  of  thinking,  it  is 
impossible  that  it  should  be.     I  am  convinced,  from 
this  circumstance,  that  the  will  is  something;   be- 
cause they  who  make  it  nothing,  are  obliged  con- 
stantly to  make  use  of  the  term,  not  finding  any 
other  appropriate  term  by  which  they  can  express 
their  ideas.     And  the  confusion  that  arises  from  their 
use  of  the  term  is  this-— they  never  have  affixed  any 
precise  ideas  to  it. 

It  is  said,  that  "  any  one  is  free,  so  far  as  he  can, 
by  the  choice  or  du'ection  of  his  mind,  preferring  the 
existence  of  any  action  to  its  non-existence,  and 
vice  versa,  make  it  to  exist,  or  not  exist.  For  if  we 
can  by  a  thought,  move  a  finger,  when  at  rest,  or 
vice  versa,  tis  evident,  that  in  respect  of  that  we 
are  free."  Here  the  term  mind,  as  in  numberless 
other  places,  is  used ;  but  I  cannot  think  that  mind 
and  will  are  synonymous  terms ;  because  the  mind, 
though  it  embrace  the  will,  yet  it  embraces  more 
than  the  will ;  and  the  mind  itself  without  the  will, 
could  not  move  a  finger  that  was  at  rest.  But  this 
argument  does  not  show,  that  the  will  is  not  free. 


^D7 

and  that  tlie  man  is  free.  **  Preferring  of  action  to 
its  absence,  is  the  willing  of  it.'*  Now  the  willing 
of  action,  is  the  mind's  prefering  action.  What  then 
is  tlie  will  ?  If  will  be  a  part  of  an  intelligent  being 
that  is  free,  I  pray  to  know  why  it  does  not  parti- 
cipate of  that  freedom  ?  We  will  assume,  that  intel- 
ligent power  is  the  essence  of,  or  at  least  tlie  essen- 
tial part  of,  a  moral  being;  and  we  presume  that 
this  will  not  be  denied.  But  such  power  cannot  be 
made  up  of  sundry  particular  powers :  and  therefore, 
according  to  the  author,  the  modifications  of  this  pow- 
er must  be  like  the  modifications  of  space.  They 
are  all  simple  ideas,  because  there  is  no  mixture  of 
heterogeneous  parts  ;  that  is,  the  author  says,  space 
divided  into  parts,  are  simple  modes.  So  we  may 
say,  that  intelligent  power,  divided  into  parts,  are 
simple  modes,  there  being  no  heterogeneous  mix- 
ture in  them.  Now  let  us  assume  a  portion  of 
space,  and  say,  it  is  moral  power ;  capable  of  divi- 
sion into  many  parts ;  and  let  us  assign  to  these  seve- 
rally the  terms,  thought,  mind,  will,  volition,  judg- 
ment, suspension,  &c.  Now,  they  all  being  simple 
parts  of  the  same  kind,  without  any  mixture,  they 
all  make  up  but  one  simple  idea,  signified  by  the 
term  mind ;  the  parts  of  which  are  mere  simple 
modes,  as  the  author  says  that  divisions  of  space 
are. 


208 

SECTION  XVI. 

j4  power  of  doing,  and  not  doing,  is  not  that  which 
constitutes  an  agent  free. 

IT  is  so  continually  repeated,  that   the  freedom  of 
an  agent  consists  in  a  power  to  do,  or  not  do,  prefer- 
ring and  not  preferring,  choosing  and  not  choosing, 
that  it  is  necessary  to  examine  carefully,  whether 
there  be  not  in  these  positive  and  negative  terms,  an 
evident  sophism  :  a  deceptive  display  of  acuteness 
even  in  contradiction.      Doing  and  not  doing  are 
both  of  them  considered  as  positive  actions  ;  both  of 
them  the  effects  of  preference,  thought,  or  volition: 
and  in  the  power  of  doing  and  not  doing,  freedom 
is  placed.      We  may   rationally   ask,  what  do  the 
words  not  doing,  mean  ?  can  there  be  in  not  doing, 
any  act  whatever  of  the  mind  ?  For  example  :  I  am 
at  rest,  my  thoughts  are  employed  about  moving ; 
but  I  do  not  choose  to  move  :  now  being  at  rest, 
no  act  of  the  mind  is  required  to  continue  me  so.  Be- 
ing at  rest  and  asleep,  no  act  of  the  mind  is  neces- 
sary to  continue  me  at  rest  and  asleep.     If  a  man  be 
moving,  it  requires  a  change  of  thought  to  be  at  rest. 
If  he  be  at  rest,  it  requires  a  charge  of  thought  to  be 
out  of  that  state.   But  in  these,  there  is  but  one  object 
about  which  the  mind  is  employed :  for  doing  one 
thing  always  excludes  the  doing  of  another.     We 
have  power  to  change  our  thoughts,  otherwise   there 
would  be  no  preferring,  or  choosing ;  but  we  have  not 
power  not  to  change  our  thoughts,  because  in  this 
case  no  power  is   required.     We  ought  not  to  say 
any  thing  more  than  tliis.     A  moral  agent  has  power 


209 

10  do;  for  all  volitions  are  real  actions  of  the  mind — 
and  wc  find  out  by  experience  only  what  we  can  do> 
and  what  we  cannot  do. 

But  the  words,  doing  and  not  doing,  choosing  and 
not  choosing,  evidently  convey  this  idea,  that  there 
are  two  objects  about  which  the  mind  is  employed, 
and  that  it  must  choose  the  one  or  the  other  of  them  : 
it  cannot  be  otherwise.     This,  however,  is  not  a  fact 
in  any  case  where  the  agent  is  actually  in  possession 
of  one  of  the  things.     When  the  mind  is  contemplat- 
ing two  objects  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  choice, 
neither  of  which  are  in  possession  of  the  agent,  the 
mind  is  under  no  absolute  necessity  of  choosing 
cither  of  them.     To  be  the  servants  of  God,  requires 
preference,  choice,  volition;     but  to  be  the  bond 
slaves  of  Satan,  there  is  no  need  of  preference  or 
choice  ;  we  are  so,  without  any  choice  or  preference. 
The  will  can  never  exceed  tlie  bounds  of  thought, 
because  it  is  nothing  more  than  a  modification  of 
thinking ;  and  we  camiot  think  to  do,  and  not  to  do 
at  the  sam€  time, 

SECTION    XVII. 

IT  is  asserted  that  in  respect  of  willing,  a  man  is 
not  free  ;  but  a  question  has  been  started,  is  he  free 
to  will  ?  And  this  question  is  supposed  to  be  the  same 
as  asking,  whether  the  will  be  free.  But  I  apprehend 
that  they  are  very  different  questions.  "To  will," 
must  be  intended  "  to  choose,"  to  exert  an  act  ot  the 
will,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  an  act  of  choice.     If 

2  E 


210 

a  man  then  be  a  distinct  thing  from  the  will ;  and  a 
man,  and  not  the  will,  chooses,  it  would  be  a  palpa- 
ble absurdity  to  say  that  the  two  questions  are  the 
same :  for  one  is,  is  the  man  free  to  choose  ?  and  the 
learned  author  has  so  often  asserted  that  the  man  is 
free,  and  that  the  will  is  not  free,  that  it  becomes  of 
importance  to  know  what  those  acts  of  the  man  are 
which  are  free,  and  what  those  are  which  are  not  free. 
What  are  the  acts  of  a  man,  except  thinking,  choos- 
ing, and  a  determination  to  acquire  the  object  cho- 
sen ?  Is  a  man  free  to  think,  but  not  free  to  choose, 
which  is  a  mere  modification  of  thinking,  and  not 
free  to  have  a  determination  to  acquire  the  object 
chosen,  which  is  but  another  modification  of  think- 
ing ?  We  take  no  notice  of  animal  strength,  because 
we  have  no  certain  knowledge  of  any  such  thing,  and 
because  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of 
freedom.     Now,  if  a  man  has  only  those  three  kinds 
©f  mental  actions,  and  also  really  has  them,  it  is  ma- 
nifest that  we  cannot  speak  intelligibly,  without  gi- 
ving them  three  different  names  :  for  simple  thinking 
does  not  imply  choosing ;  but  thinking  and  choosing 
generally,   if  not  always,  imply  determination  and 
Avill :  the  mind  is  in  a  different  state  after  the  choice 
is  made,  from  what  it  was  before.     The  choice  of  the 
mind  we   consider  as  an  instantaneous  act ;    after 
which  there  may  be  a  fixed  determination  of  the 
mind  for  a  great  length  of  time,  which  I  understand 
to  be  signified  by  the  term  wf//;    if  it  have  any 
meaning.     It  must,  therefore,  be  evident,  that  tlic 
question, — Is  a  man  free  to  will  ?  is  not  the  same  aJi 


211 

this — Is  the  will  free  ?  because  the  term  man  em- 
braces much  more  than  the  term  will.  In  this  view 
of  the  matter,  the  accountability  of  a  moral  being  is 
placed  precisely  in  acts  of  preferring  and  choosing, 
and  not  in  the  will  at  all. 

SECTION    XVIII. 

WHEN  it  is  said,  as  it  often  is,  that  willing,  or 
volition,  is  an  action,  and  that  freedom  belongs  to  the 
power  of  acting  or  not  acting ;  and  that  a  man,  in 
respect  of  willing,  when  an  action  in  his  power  is 
once  proposed  to  his  thoughts,  as  presently  to  be 
done,  cannot  be  free,  because  it  is  unavoidable,  that 
the  action  depending  on  his  will  should  exist,  or  not 
exist ;  and  its  existence  or  not  existence,  following 
perfectly  the  determination  or  preference  of  the  will, 
he  cannot  avoid  willing  the  existence  or  non-exist- 
ence of  that  action ;  that  it  is  absolutely  necessar}'' 
that  he  will  one  or  the  other,  since  one  of  them  must 
necessarily  follow :  and  that  which  does  follow,  fol- 
lows by  the  choice  and  determination  of  his  mind  ; 
that  is,  by  his  willing  it ;  so  that  in  respect  of  wil- 
ling, a  man  is  not  free. 

On  these  remarks  we  observe,  that  willing,  or  vo- 
lition, implies  power  of  action ;  and  that  if  freedom 
belongs  to  a  power  of  acting,  it  may  as  well  belong 
to  the  power  that  chooses,  as  to  any  other  supposed 
GT  unkno\vn  power.  I  say  unknown  power,  because 
a  power  of  acting,  distinct  from  the  power  of  choos- 
ing, cannot  be  found  in  the  human  mind.  Further ; 
it  is  not  a  fact,  that  a  man,  in  respect  of  willing, 


212 

when  ail  action  in  his  power  is  once  proposed  to  his 
thoughts,  as  presently  to  be  done,  is  not  free  :  for  it 
is  palpably  absurd  to  say  of  that  which  is  actually  a 
non-existence,  that  a  man  cannot  help  willing  its  non- 
existence ;  it  is  so,  without  any  will  of  his  about  it. 
Choosing  is  an  ivisible  act  of  the  mind,  discoverable 
only  by  overt  acts,  or  the  mind  exerting  such  acts  as 
will  convince  others  that  that  mind  has  actually  made 
its  choice.  Let  us  examine,  and  consider  well  the 
following  case : — The  joys  of  eternal  life  are  offered 
to  a  siimcr  upon  the  terms  of  the  Gospel ;  he  does 
not  choose  eternal  life,  with  all  its  joys,  on  those 
terms.  In  this  case,  he  does  not  make  two,  or  any 
choice,  about  it.  He  does  not  choose  existence  or 
non-existence.  He  does  not  exert  any  act  of  choice 
whatever  in  the  case.  As  to  sin,  he  is  in  possession 
of  it ;  and  no  act  of  choosing  is  necessary,  to  place 
him  in  such  a  state  as  that  of  a  sinner.  When  any 
one  shall  have  demonstrated,  that  not  choosing  and 
not  doing  are  real  acts  of  the  mind,  then  we  must 
allow,  that  the  non-existence  of  a  thing  depends  upon 
an  act  of  the  mind,  however  absurd  it  may  be.  Do- 
ing and  not  doing,  choosing  and  not  choosing,  re- 
late to  one  single  object  in  the  mind ;  and  the  fallacy 
seems  to  l?y  in  this,  that  we  make  two  complete  ob- 
jects of  that  one  object ;  and  that  the  mind  is  actually 
t^mployed  about  both  of  them ;  and  the  phrase  be- 
comes familiar,  though  it  really  have  little  or  no 
sense  in  it — to  do,  or  7iot  to  do  ;  to  choosey  or  not  to 
choose.  Not  doing  and  not  choosing,  are  no  doing 
and  no  choosing  j  and  to  apply  freedom,  or  the  want 


213 

of  it,  where  no  power  is  exercised,  is  nonsense  :  for 
freedom  more  especially  belongs  to  power  in  ex- 
ercise. 

Let  tlie  object  about  which  a  man  Ls  tliinking  be 
the  writing  of  a  letter ;  but  he  docs  not  write  it. 
There  is,  in  this  case,  no  act  of  choice  exerted ;  be- 
cause such  an  act  requires  a  real  change  in  tlie  mind. 
If  it  be  said  that  he  has  two  objects  in  his  mind,  viz. 
to  write  and  not  to  WTitc,  I  beg  leave  to  ask,  what 
sort  of  an  object  not  to  write  can  be  in  his  mind? 
He  is  not  writing,  and  to  continue  in  that  state,  re- 
quires no  act  of  volition.  The  confusion  seems  to 
arise  from  a  positive  and  negative  proposition  :  and 
if  the  miiKl  could,  at  the  same  moment,  make  two 
choices,  one  for  the  existence,  and  the  other  for  the 
non-existence  of  a  thing,  then  it  would  be  free. 
Thus  it  appears  to  me,  that  freedom  is  placed  in  an 
impossibilit}-,  which  is  attached  to  the  man  or  agent, 
as  well  as  to  the  power  of  choosing.  Action  is 
placed  in  a  double  capacity — as  acting,  and  not  act- 
ing. Previous  to  the  existence  of  any  action,  it  is 
not  an  existence  ;  and  no  act  of  choice  is  necessar}' 
to  make  it  so :  but  an  act  of  choice  is  requisite  to 
give  existence  to  action.  Now,  though  we  should 
grant,  that  an  action  depending  on  an  act  of  choice, 
must  exist  or  not  exist,  yet  the  non-existence  of  it 
does  not  depend  on  volition,  but  the  existence  of  it ; 
and  therefore  the  mind,  in  the  exercise  of  its  power 
of  choosing,  must  be  as  free  as  any  other  concci^'ablc 
power  in  man.    There  are  no  negative  acts  of  choice. 


214 


SECTION    XIX. 

IT  is  said,  that  in  all  present  proposals  of  immediate 
action,  a  man  is  not  at  liberty  to  will  or  not  to  will,  be- 
cause he  cannot  forbear  willing ;  liberty  consisting  in 
a  power  to  act  or  forbear  acting,  and  in  that  alone : 
for  a  man  that  sits  still,  is  said  yet  to  be  at  liberty,  be- 
cause he  can  walk,  if  he  will  it.     The  act  of  willing 
is  supposed  to  be  a  necessary,  and  not  a  voluntary 
action,  according    to  the  distinction  that  we  have 
found  to  be  made  between  the  words  necessary  and 
voluntary.  And  in  order  to  show  that  an  act  of  choice 
is  necessary,  it  is  said  that  a  man  is  not  at  liberty  to 
will  or  not  to  will.     The  reason  is,  that  he  cannot 
help  willing ;  but  why  not,  is  left  unexplained.     We 
presume  that  we  have  already  shown  that  it  is  not 
true,  that  a  man  cannot  forbear  willing  ;  and  if  I  at- 
tempt again  to  place  the  argument  on  paper,  it  is  be- 
cause the  author  has,  in  nearly  sixty  sections,  re- 
peated over  and  over  again,  the  same  thing.     In 
order  to  see  whether  a  man  cannot  forbear  willing, 
we  will  endeavour  to  simplify,  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, the  object  about  which  the  mind  must  be  think- 
ing, when  a  proposal  of  present  action  is  made  to  it. 
A  man  is  at  rest ;  he  has  made  sure  of  it  by  a  pre- 
vious act  of  choice  ;  and  no  new  act  after  the  first  is 
requisite  to  keep  him  in  that  state.     In  this  state 
there  is  a  proposal  of  present  action,  viz.  to  move ; 
but  he  does  not  move  ;  there  is  no  act  of  choice  to 
move  ;  there  is  no  willing  in  the  matter.     The  ob- 
ject is  dismissed  from  the  mind.     How,  then,  can  it 


215 

iJe  said,  that  there  can  be  no  forbearance  of  willing  ?. 
If  it  be  said  that  he  wills  rest,  this  is  not  true  ;  un- 
less willing  be  repeated  every  moment  a  man  is  in  a 
particular  state  ;  unless  one  act  of  willing  in  choos- 
ing God  for  our  portion,  be  insufficient.  And  simi- 
lar acts  of  willing  are  necessar}'  every  moment  a  man 
continues  in  that  state,  which  I  humbly  conceive  is  a 
ver}-  gross  absurdity.  A  man  being  at  rest  before, 
and  at  the  time  the  proposal  is  made  to  move  ;  and 
continuing  to  be  at  rest,  notwithstanding  the  propo- 
sal, there  being  no  change  of  the  mind ;  it  being  in 
the  same  state  after,  as  it  was  before  the  proposal  was 
made  and  laid  aside,  is  complete  evidence,  that  he 
can  forbear  to  will.  If  this  be  not  a  forbearing  to 
will,  I  should  be  glad  to  know  what  it  is.  If,  then, 
liberty  consist  in  a  power  to  act,  and  forbear  acting, 
and  in  that  only,  it  is  evident,  that  liberty  may  be 
as  properly  ascribed  to  the  will,  or  the  power  of 
choosing,  as  to  any  other  power  in  the  mind.  The 
great,  and  sole  argument  the  author  adduces  to 
show,  that  the  power  of  choosing  is  not  a  free  power, 
is,  that  it  cannot  choose,  or  forbear  choosing ;  but 
that  power  to  which  liberty  is  solely  applicable,  can 
do,  or  forbear  doing.  If  this  argument  fail,  as  I  am 
sure  it  does,  I  do  not  see  but  the  author's  whole  sys- 
tem fails.  The  fallacy  is  this, — it  is  taken  for  grant- 
ed, that  a  proposal  of  present  action  cannot  be  dis- 
missed without  action  or  volition  ;  but  that  when  it  is 
made,  an  act  of  choice  necessarily  ensues,  cither  for 
or  against  it. 


^la 


SECTION    XX. 

IT  is  said,  that,  "  since  it  is  plain,  that  in  most  ca- 
"  ses  a  man  is  not  at  hbertj  whether  he  will  will^  or 
"  no  ;  the  next  thing  demanded  is,  whether  a  man 
"  be  at  liberty  to  will  which  of  the  two  he  pleases, 
**  motion  or  rest  ?  It  is  said,  that  this  question  car- 
"  ries  the  absurdity  of  it  so  manifestly  in  itself,  that 
"  one  might  thereby  be  sufficiently  convinced  that 
*'  liberty  concerns  not  the  will ;  because,  to  ask  whe- 
"  ther  a  man  be  at  liberty  to  will  either  motion  or  rest, 
"  speaking  or  silence,  which  he  pleases,  is  to  ask, 
"  whether  a  man  can  will,  what  he  wills  ?  a  question 
"  which  supposes  onfe  will  to  determine  the  acts  of 
"  another ;  and  another  to  determine  that,  and  so  on 
*'  infinitum." 

This  is  to  me  a  very  mysterious  passage.  If  we 
could  suppose  a  man  to  be  neither  in  motion,  nor  at 
rest,  an  act  of  choice  would  be  necessary  for  him  to 
be  either  in  motion  or  at  rest.  But  a  man  is  always 
in  motion  or  at  rest ;  and  a  single  act  of  willing 
changes  him  from  motion  to  rest ;  or  from  rest  to 
motion. 

This  question,  whether  a  man  be  at  liberty  to  will 
which  of  the  two  he  pleases,  motion  or  rest,  carries 
its  own  absurdity  with  it ;  for  a  man  being  at  rest, 
is  not  at  liberty  to  will  which  of  the  two  he  pleases.  If 
he  wills  at  all,  it  must  be  to  move  :  and  if  he  be  in 
motion,  it  must  be  to  rest.  It  is  evident,  that  mo- 
tion and  rest  cannot  be  the  objects  of  choice  at  the 
same  time,  unless  the  man  be  neither  in  motion  noT 


217 

;4t  rest.  If  the  question  cany  its  own  absurdity  with 
it,  how  does  this  concern  the  question,  Is  the  will 
free?  I  cannot,  after  mature  deliberation,  perceive 
how  it  has  any  tendency  in  the  least  to  convince  us, 
that  liberty  concerns  not  the  will ;  nor  how  an  ab- 
surd question  proves  that  the  will  is  not  free.  But 
there  is  a  reason  given  why  it  docs ;  and  I  venture  to 
say  that  if  no  one  had  seen  it,  it  never  could  be  found 
out  by  guessing,  or  any  other  way.  The  purport  of 
it  is,  that  a  man  is  certainly  at  liberty  to  will  what 
he  wills.  If  any  one  can  make  any  sense  out  of  the 
whole  of  tliis,  he  can  do  more  than  I  can. 

SECTION    XXI. 

IT  is  said,  that  "  it  must  be  carefully  remembered, 
"  that  freedom  consists  in  the  dependence  of  the  ex- 
**  istence,  or  not  existence,  of  any  action,  upon  our 
"  volition  of  it,  and  not  in  the  dependence  of  any  ac- 
"  tion,  or  its  contrary,  on  our  preference." 

We  remark  here,  that  we  don't  know  what  is 
meant  by  these  words,  *'  Freedom  consists  in  the  de- 
pendence of  the  non-existence  of  any  action,  upon 
our  volition  of  it."  It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
that  volition  does  something,  but  what  it  is  precisely, 
I  do  not  perceive.  The  action  seems  to  be  something 
that  takes  place  after  volition,  and  to  be  brought  into 
existence  by  some  other  power  than  that  of  volition. 
The  term  preference^  is  not  used  here  for  an  act  of 

2  r 


218 

choosing,  and  only  serves  to  perplex ;  for  it  takes  away- 
all  meaning  from  that  part  of  the  sentence  with  which 
it  is  connected.  If  it  meant  the  same  as  choosing, 
there  would  have  been  a  palpable  contradiction  in  the 
passage;  what  is  affirmed  in  one  part,  would  have 
been  contradicted  in  the  other  part. 

It  is  manifest,  upon  reflection,  that  there  is  a  state 
of  the  mind  after  It  has  chosen  an  object,  which  me- 
taphysicians and  polemic  writers  have  not  designated 
by  a  name.     If  I  may  be  allowed  the  expressions,  it 
is  the  visibly  active  state  of  the  mind ;    in  other 
words,  it  is  the  will.     By  making  the  will  that  power 
in  us  which  chooses,  the  powers  of  the  mind  seem  to 
terminate  here,  and  no  other  power  of  the  mind  is  left 
to  execute  our  volitions  :  for  it  would  be  absurd  to 
say,  that  it  is  the  will  in  the  constant  exercise  of  acts  of 
volition.  Every  one  must  be  sensible,  that  a  single  act 
of  volition  appropriates  the  object  chosen  to  himself, 
though  it  may  not  be  acquired  for  a  great  length  of 
time.     The  state  of  the  mind,  during  this  time,  is  a 
state  of  visible  exertions :  and  in  these  alone,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  Locke  has  placed  all  the  freedom  that  is 
in  man.     And  yet  these  actions  take  place  in  conse- 
quence of  volition.     But  why  they  should  be  free, 
and  volition  not  free,  he  certainly  has  not  given  us  to 
understand.     He  says,  that  "  the  will  being  nothing 
but  a  power  in  the  mind  to  direct  the  operative  fa- 
culties of  a  man  to  motion  or  rest,  as  far  as  they  de- 
pend ou   such   directions — to    the  question,   what 


S19 

is  it  determines  the  will  ?  The  true  and  proper  an- 
swer is, — ^the  mind."     Thus  he  makes  the  mind  a 
self-determining  power ;  and  I  apprehend  that  he  must 
mean  that  the  mind  determines  the  will  by  thinking, 
or   by  a  thought.     And   if  thinking  belong  exclu- 
sively to  the  mind,  and  not  to  the  will  at  all,  I  ask, 
what  possible  use  can  there  be  of  a  will  in  the  hu- 
man mind?    It  is  precisely   making  two  different 
causes  for  one  and  the  same  effect :  for  the  mind  is 
generally  omitted,  and  the  will  is  made  the  efficient 
cause  of  volition  :  and  when  we  have,  by  habit,  fixed 
it  in  our  minds,  that  the  will  is  the  cause  of  volition, 
we  can  then,  with  great  ease,  prove  logically,  that 
neither  the  will,  nor  any  thing  else,  is  free  in  the 
mind.      Acts   of  choice  are  founded  in  faith  and 
opinion,   as  well  as  knowledge ;    but  the   will  has 
nothing  to  do  with  faith,  opinion,  or  knowledge  :  and 
if  not,  the  term  wz7/  ought  to  be  banished  from  the 
vocabulary  of  metaphysicians  and  divines,  not  only 
as  a  useless  term,  but  as  having  been  the  occasion  of 
long  and  angry  debates  in  the  world,  about  the  free- 
dom of  the  will,  in  the  sense,  if  there  be  any,  as  used 
by  them. 


CHAPTER  ir. 

An  examination  of  some  of  the  leading  doctrines  of 
President  Edwards  on  the  Freedom  of  the  WilL 


HIS  author,  ii^his  "Inquiry  into  the  modern 
prevailing  notions  of  that  freedom  of  the  will  which 
is  supposed  to  be  essential  to  moral  agency,  virtue 
and  vice,  reward  and  punishment,  praise  and  blame,''' 
has,  in  a  great  measure,  adopted  Locke's  opinion  re- 
specting the  freedom  of  the  will.  The  sole  design  of 
this  author,  is  to  prove  that  Calvinists,  in  respect  of 
their  ideas  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  are  correct,  and 
that  Arminians  are  not.  If  he  has  refuted  the  opinions 
of  the  Arminians,  it  does  not  follow  of  course  that 
Calvinists  are  right. 

If  Locke's  chapter  on  power  establish  Calvinistic 
tenets,  he  did  not  think  so  himself :  for  in  a  letter  to 
Limborch,  long  after  this  chapter,  as  we  now  have  it 
corrected,  was  printed,  he  says,  that,  in  order  to  satis- 
fy himself  as  to  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  he  pro- 
cured Calvin's  and  Turretine's  works,  and  read  them 
with  attention,  and  found  that  they  were  unintelligible 
to  him  ;  that  he  could  not  comprehend  their  system. 
Thus  we  see  two  men,  distinguished  for  their  abili- 


221 

ties,  entertaining  nearly,  if  not  exactly,  the  same  opin- 
ions about  the  will :  yet  Locke  is  considered  as  an 
Arminian  writer  ;  and  Edwards  is  the  great  bulwark 
of  Calvinism. 

If  ever  a  man  \vrote  for  the  truth,  Locke  appears 
to  me  to  have  been  that  man.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  aj^pears  to  me,  that  Edwards  \vrote  for  a  cause. 

Edwards,  p.  2.  says,  "  the  will^  without  any  mata- 
physwal  rejiruvg^  is  plainly  that  by  which  the  mind 
chooses  any  thing. ^"^  However  plain  this  may  be,  it  af- 
fords us  no  idea  of  the  meaning  of  the  term  will ;  lor 
if  the  mind  chooses  by  the  will,  then  the  will  does 
not  choose  at  all,  unless  mind  and  will  be  synonymous 
terms,  or  unless  the  term  will  express  a  mere  single 
act  of  the  mind  ;  and  we  are  to  understand  by  it,  the 
mind  in  the  actual  state  of  choosing.  In  either  of  these 
senses,  it  is  not  plain  that  the  mind  chooses  by  the 
will. 

"  If  any  think  it  a  more  perfect  definition  of  the 
will,  to  say,  that  it  is  that  by  which  the  soul  either 
chooses,  or  refuses,  I  am  content  with  it."  This 
pretended  definition  of  the  term,  will^  is  not  only  li- 
able to  the  foregoing  objections,  but  also  to  a  further 
evident  inconsistency,  which  is  that,  refusing  to 
choose^  is  a  real  act  of  the  mind  ;  a  real  choice. 
Further,  we  have  here  substituted  the  term  soul,  f^or  the 
term  mind.  In  a  disquisition  upon  a  subject  so  in- 
tricate, an  adherence  to  the  same  term  is  not  only 
proper,  but  necessary.  It  is  acknowledged  that  the 
will  itself  does  not  choose  :  it  is  said,  the  mind,  the 
souly  the  man,  and  the  agent,  choose  by  the  will ;  and 


222 

that  freedom  may  be  predicated  of  any  of  those  four 
terms,  but  not  of  the  will.  If  any  of  those  four  terms, 
or  what  is  signified  by  them,  chooses  by  the  will,  it 
is  plain  enough  that  liberty  must  be  ascribed  to  them, 
and  not  to  the  will ;  for  they  are  powers,  and  liberty 
cannot  be  predicated  of  any  thing  that  has  no  power  : 
consequently  not  of  the  will,  which  is  represented  as 
a  mere  instrument,  not  unlike  the  racket  which 
strikes  the  tennis  ball.  If  this  idea  of  the  will  were 
precisely  adhered  to,  we  should  never  find  it  used  for 
a  power ;  but  forgetting  one  part  of  the  definition,  the 
term  will  is  substituted  for  the  mind,  the  soul,  the 
man,  the  agent ;  and  not  forgetting  the  other  part  of 
the  definition,  that  will  is  not  free,  the  term  ivill  is 
substituted  in  the  room  of  any  of  those  terms,  and 
becomes  the  sine  qua  non  of  moral  agency  :  whereas, 
according  to  the  definition,  it  has  nothing  more  to  do 
with  moral  agency,  than  the  shuttle  driven  by  the 
hand  of  man.  The  author  says,  "  in  every  act  of  re- 
fusal, the  mind  chooses  the  absence  of  the  thing  re- 
fused. The  positive  and  negative  are  set  before  the 
mind  for  its  choice,  it  chooses  the  negative  :  and  the 
mind's  making  its  choice,  in  that  case,  is  properly 
the  act  of  the  will :  the  will's  determining  between 
the  two,  is  a  voluntary  determining ;  but  that  is  the 
same  as  making  a  choice." 

We  observe  here,  that  it  is  a  plain  contradiction,  to 
say,  that  that  is  a  choice,  which  is  no  choice  at  all ; 
and  if  refusing  to  choose,  be  not  a  negative  as  to 
choice,  it  is  impossible  to  say  what  is.  All  the  acts 
of  choice  of  the  mind  are  positive,  and  it  is  impossi- 


223 

ble  that  a  negative  choice  should  have  any  existence. 
We  observe  further,  that  wc  have  laid  here  the  foun- 
dation of  endless  error  and  confusion,  in  these  words 
— "  The  mind's  making  its  choice,  is  properly  an  act 
of  the  wilU^  This  is  not  true,  according  to  the  defi- 
nition, "  the  will  is  that  by  which  the  mind  chooses  ;'^ 
for  here  the  mind  acts  by  tlie  will ;  of  course  the  ^vill 
does  not  act  at  all.  If  the  mind  act  by  the  will,  is 
it  possible,  that  the  will  should  act  by,  or  without  the 
mind  ?  There  cannot  properly  be  any  act  of  the  will, 
unless  the  term  be  used  very  improperly ;  that  is, 
synonymous  with  mind^  soul^  ma7iy  agent. 

"  In  every  act  of  the  will  whatsoever,  the  mind 
chooses  one  thing  rather  than  another ;  it  chooses 
something  rather  than  the  contrary,  or  rather  than  the 
want  or  non-existence  of  that  thing."  This  sentence 
directly  contradicts  what  had  been  said  before,  viz. 
The  mind  chooses  the  absence  of  the  thing  refused — - 
it  chooses  a  negative.  But  this  is  not  all  that  is  ob- 
jectionable ;  for  here  we  have  the  act  of  the  will,  and 
yet  it  is  the  mind  that  chooses :  and  if  it  does  not 
choose  without  acting,  then  one  choice  requires  two 
acts :  that  is,  an  act  of  the  will,  and  an  act  of  the  mind, 
if  the  will  acts  at  all,  which  it  certainly  does  not.  Ac- 
cording to  the  author,  therefore,  it  is  absurd  for  him 
to  say,  that  there  are  acts  of  will.  The  author 
says.  Sec.  2.  p.  6.  "  By  determining  the  will,  if  the 
phrase  be  used  with  any  meaning,  must  be  intended, 
causing  that  the  act  of  the  will  or  choice,  should  be 
thus,  and  not  otherwise.'' 

Here  the  will  is  again  introduced  as  an  active  prin- 


224 

eiple,  both  as  acting,  and  being  acted  upon.  Yet  if 
the  mind  or  soul  chooses  by  the  will,  and  is  the  active 
l;hinking  principle  in  us,  that  active  thinking  princi- 
ple operates  upon  the  will,  which  thinks  not  at  all ; 
and  so  the  will  becomes  the  arbiter  and  determiner  of 
all  our  thoughts,  and  acts  of  volition.  If  we  were 
governed  by  such  reasoning,  we  should  be  governed 
by  the  sound,  and  not  by  the  sense  of  Words.  But 
he  proceeds,  "  the  will  is  said  to  be  determined,  when, 
in  consequence  of  some  action  or  influence,  its  choice 
is  directed  to,  and  fixed  upon  a  particular  object.*' 

If  there  be  action  and  influence  on  the  will,  there 
must  be  a  cause  capable  of  producing  that  action  or 
influence,  in  consequence  of  which  the  will  chooses  ; 
so  that  if  the  will  be  an  agent  at  all,  there  must  be 
two  agents  in  order  to  produce  one  act  of  the  will ; 
for  there  cannot  be  action,  except  there  be  a  power  ca- 
pable of  acting.  There  is  then  a  power  that  precedes 
and  acts  on  the  will :  and  the  will  is  a  power  that 
chooses,  in  consequence  of  that  preceding  power  acting 
upon  the  will.  Therefore  one  act  of  volition  requires 
two  active  powers,  and  so  it  may  a  hundred,  or  a 
hundred  million,  on  this  scheme  ;  that  is,  there  may 
be  powers  preceding  each  other,  in  infinitum.  And 
this  is  precisely  the  contradictor)-^  method  of  reason- 
ing,  which  we  shiill  hereafter  find  that  the  author  at- 
tempts to  run  those  into  whom  he  opposes. 

*'  To  talk  of  the  determination  of  the  will,  suppo- 
ses an  effect,  which  must  have  a  cause.  If  the  will  be 
determined,  there  is  a  determiner.  This  must  be  sup- 
posed to  be  intended  even  by  them  that  say,  the  will 


225 

determines  itself.  If  it  be  so,  tlie  will  is  both  deter- 
miner and  determined  ;  it  is  a  cause  that  acts  and  pro- 
duces effects  on  itself,  and  is  the  object  of  its  own  in* 
fluence  and  action." 

The  author  not  having  given  any  intelligible  defi- 
nition  of  the  term  will,  he  may  make  it  what  he  pleas- 
es ;  but  his  reasoning  about  it  must  be  altogether 
fancy  and  conjecture.  The  design  of  the  author  in 
this  unintelligible  argument  is,  to  show  the  absurdity 
of  his  opponents.  The  acts  of  the  will  are  choosing ; 
but  to  say  that  there  is  a  determination  to  choose  be- 
fore an  act  of  choice,  is  absurd :  for  it  is  making  two 
things  essential  to  choice,  a  determination  to  choose, 
and  actually  choosing.  If  the  mind  chooses  by  the 
will,  it  is  not  the  mind  that  determines  the  will ;  and 
then  die  will  chooses ;  but  it  is  the  mind  itself  acts. 
And  the  proper  question  is,  what  determines  the 
mind  to  choose  by  the  will  ?  and  to  this  question 
there  can  be  but  three  supposable  answers.  First- 
Causes  and  effects  ad  infinitum :  for  example,  what  de- 
termines the  mind,  and  what  determines  that  which 
determines  the  mind,  and  so  on.  Secondly — God 
determines  the  mind  to  choose  by  the  will.  And 
thirdl}' — God  has  given  power  to  the  mind  to  choose 
by  the  will.  Now  if  the  mind  be  nothing,  then  it  is 
God  himself  that  chooses  by  the  will ;  and  as  the  es- 
sence of  sin  consists  in  wrong  choosing,  and  actions 
necessarily  flowing  from  such  choice,  the  consequence 
is  inevitable,  that  God  is  the  author  of  all  the  sin  in  the 
universe ;  which  is  a  blasphemous  doctrine.    There- 

2  c 


226 

fofe  we  siiy,  that  God  has  given  power  to  the  mind  to 
choose  objects  according  as  it  distinguishes,  or  per- 
ceives in  them  any  thing  of  convenience,  comfort,  or 
excellency.  Objects  are  the  sine  qua  non  of  choice  ; 
but  they  have  no  active  influence  in  producing 
choice.     The  action  is  all  in  the  mind. 

This  argument  seems  to  be  formed  so  as  not  only 
to  convict  the  author's  opponents  of  absurdity,  but 
to  establish  the  doctrine,  that  the  will  is  not  free. 
And  the  strength  of  it  is  evidently  this — If  the  will 
be  a  power,  and  that  power  be  capable  of  acting  it- 
self, it  is  not  that  power  that  acts  of  itself;  but  it  is 
some  other  power  that  influences  or  determines  that 
power  to  act :  therefore  the  will  is  an  effect  which  re- 
quires a  cause.  This  argument  takes  all  for  granted, 
and  proves  nothing.  If  the  will  is  determined,  there 
must  he  a  determiner.  This  we  cannot  take  for 
granted ;  and  the  author  will  warrant  us  in  saying, 
tliat  it  is  not  true  ;  because  it  is  predicating  one  pow- 
er of  another  power,  if  the  term  -will^  here  be  used  as 
a  power,  or  to  signify  a  power  :  if  not,  I  presume  it 
will  be  evident  to  every  one,  that  there  is  no  argu- 
ment. The  assumption  that  the  will  is  both  deter- 
miner and  determined,  is  absurd  ;  because  it  takes 
for  granted  that  there  are  two  active  powers  in  the 
mind ;  which  we  cannot  agree  to,  until  we  see  it  ful- 
ly proved  that  there  are,  and  that  one  of  them  acts 
upon  and  produces  effects  in  the  other.  Both  Locke 
and  this  author  have  decided  that  powers  do  not  be- 
long to  powers.  Locke  says,  but  erroneously,  that 
liberty  is  a  po^ver  and  the  will  is  a  power,  and  is  not 


227 

free,  because  one  power  does  not  belong  to  another 
power:  that  is,  powers  act  independently  of  each 
other. 

"  With  respect  to  that  grand  inquiiy,  what  deter- 
mines the  will  ?  it  would  be  very  tedious  and  unne- 
cessary at  present,  to  enumerate  and  examine  all  the 
various  opinions  which  have  been  advanced  con- 
cerning tliis  matter  ;  nor  is  it  needful  that  I  should 
enter  into  a  particular  discussion,  of  all  the  points  de- 
bated in  disputes  on  that  question,  whether  the  will 
always  follows  the  last  dictate  of  the  understanding  ? 
It  is  sufficient  to  my  present  purpose  to  say,  it  is  that 
motive,  which,  as  it  stands  in  the  view  of  the  mind,  is 
the  strongest,  that  determines  the  will."  By  motive, 
I  mean  the  whole  of  that  "  which  moves,  excites,  or 
invites  the  mind  to  volition,  whether  that  be  one  thing 
singly,  or  many  things  conjunctly." 

It  is  here  conceded  that  the  inquiry,  what  deter- 
mines the  will  ?  is  a  grand  one.  It  is  however  de- 
cided,  that  the  strongest  motive  in  the  mind's  view  de- 
termines the  will.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  this 
decision  is  incorrect ;  because  we  have  no  idea  of  any 
connexion  between  the  mind's  view  of  the  strongest 
motive,  and  the  determination  of  the  will.  If  the 
mind  and  will  be  two  distinct  powers,  it  is  absurd  to 
say,  that  the  power  of  the  mind  determines  another 
power  of  the  agent ;  or  to  say,  that  the  mind  has  more 
powers  than  one.  And  if  the  will  be  not  a  power, 
the  question,  what  determines  the  will  ?  is  easily  an- 
swered. The  mind  cannot  operate  upon  that  which 
neither,  as  spirit  nor  as  matter,  has  any  existence  ; 


228 

therefore  it  does  not  determine  the  will.      At  first 
sight,  the  assertion  seems  to  be  a  plain  and  evident 
truth,  upon  which  the  mind  j)asses  judgment  imme- 
diately,  without  a  moment's  reflection.   We  certainly 
act  as  we  think,  and  that  object  is  a  motive,  ground,  or 
reason,  for  action  ;  and  for  our  thinking  to  act,  which  is 
for  the  present  moment  most  agreeable.    But  it  never 
can  be  true  that  the  mind  determines  the  will  in  the 
way  stated.    If  the  will  be  a  power,  it  must  be  at  least 
a  part  of  the  mind  ;  and  if  the  mind  determines  the 
will,  it  determines  a  part  of  itself,  and  may  as  well  de- 
termine the  whole  of  itself.     For  if  one  part  of  the 
mind  can  determine  another  part  of  the  mind,  sure 
all  the  parts  can  determine  the  whole  mind,  unless 
they  be  essentially  different :  but  this  cannot  be.    The 
mind  is  not  made  up  of  heterogeneous  parts.     The 
soul  is  the  substratum  of  one  power,  whose  opera- 
tions appearing  variegated,  are  subjects,  or  objects  of 
the  mind's  contemplation. 

"  Whatever  is  a  motive  in  this  sense,  must  be 
something  that  is  extant  in  the  view  or  apprehension 
of  the  understanding  or  perceiving  faculty  :  nothing 
can  invite,  or  induce  the  mmd  to  willy  or  act  any  thing, 
any  further  than  it  is  perceived,  or  some  way  or  other 
in  the  mind's  view  :  for  what  is  wholly  unperceived, 
and  perfectly  out  of  the  mind's  view,  cannot  affect  the 
mind  at  all.  It  is  most  evident  that  nothing  is  in  the 
mind,  or  reaches  it,  or  takes  any  hold  of  it,  any  other- 
wise than  it  is  perceived  or  thought  of." 

I  am  happy  to  find,  that  we  are  at  last  told  that 
thinking  is  essential  to  choosing ;  for  I  apprehend 


S29 

that  the  wbrds, "  induce  the  mind  to  will,''*  must  mean, 
^'  induce  the  mind  to  choose  ;"  and  if  the  mind 
chooses,  it  is  not  the  will  that  chooses. 

The  author  says,  "  tliat  it  must  be  true,  in  some 
sense,  tliat  die  will  always  is  as  the  greatest  apparent 
good  is."  Whether  this  assertion  be  correct  or  not, 
cannot  be  ascertained,  until  we  know  in  what  pre- 
cise sense  the  term  will  is  here  used.  If  the  asser- 
tion amount  to  any  thing  more  than  this,  the  mind 
thinks  as  it  thinks,  and  acts  as  it  thinks,  I  have  not 
been  able  to  discover  its  meaning.  The  mind  un- 
questionably acts  as  it  thinks  at  the  time  of  action. 
The  choice  of  an  object,  if  it  had  often  been  perceived 
before,  without  any  excitement,  arises  from  a  new 
and  different  perception  of  the  object.  The  mind  per- 
ceives something  in  it  that  it  never  perceived  before, 
and  has  therefore  an  entire  new  idea  about  it ;  and 
without  this  new  idea,  it  would  never  iiave  been 
chosen.  Some  of  these  new  ideas  make  a  very 
faint  impression  on  the  mind ;  and  the  zeal  to  acquire 
the  object  after  it  is  chosen,  is  in  proportion  to  the 
impression,  very  little.  Sometimes  they  make  a  deep 
and  lasting  impression,  and  then  the  zeal  is  propor- 
tionably  great.  Between  this  new  idea,  and  choosing 
the  object,  there  can  be  no  distinction.  And  if  not,  it 
is  impossible  that  any  such  supposed  faculty  or  pow- 
er as  will,  should  have  any  concern  in  choosing  an  ob- 
ject. 

The  author  has  given  many  reasons,  why  things 
appear  agreeable  to  the  mind;  but  not  perceivmg 


230 

that  they  have  any  connexion  with  the  will,  no  notice 
will  be  taken  of  them. 

He  says,  "  it  appears,  from  these  things,  that  in 
•some  sense  the  will  always  follows  the  last  dictate  of 
the  understanding  ;  but  then  the  understanding  must- 
be  taken  in  a  large  sense,  as  including  the  whole  fa- 
culty of  perception  or  apprehension,  and  not  what  is 
merely  called  reason  and  judgment.  If,  by  the  dic- 
tate of  the  understanding,  be  meant  what  reason  de- 
clares to  be  best,  or  most  for  the  person's  happiness, 
taking  in  the  whole  of  its  duration,  it  is  not  true  that 
the  will  always  follows  the  last  dictate  of  the  under- 
standing. Such  a  dictate  of  reason,  is  quite  a  dif- 
ferent matter  from  things  appearing  now  most  agree- 
able." 

On  this  passage,  we  remark,  that  we  know  not 
what  ideas  to  affix  to  the  words,  "  dictate  of  the 
understanding.''''  The  will  is  said  to  be  the  com- 
manding and  governing  faculty  of  the  man.  Now  the 
understanding  dictates  to  the  will.  I  apprehend,  how- 
ever, that  no  rational  meaning  can  be  affixed  to  these 
phrases.  The  understanding  being  taken  for  the 
power  of  perception,  or  that  power  in  the  mind  which 
perceives,  I  do  not  apprehend  that  it  can  be  taken  in 
a  larger  or  smaller  sense  :  and  I  do  not  think,  tliat 
there  is  any  distinction  between  the  whole  faculty  of 
perception,  and  that  perception  which  is  called  reason 
and  judgment.  Perception  is  perception,  and  nothing 
else.  But  we  find  that  the  understanding  not  only 
percei^'cs,  but  it  dictates  to.  Is  it  to  itself,  or  to 
some  other  intelHgent  faculty  in  the  mind?  For  a 


^31 

dictate  to  mere  matter,  or  any  insensible  tiling,  or  non- 
existence, is  an  absurdity.  That  the  perceiving  pow- 
er should  dictate  to  itself  is  absurd,  and  not  more  so 
than  that  it  should  dictate  to  an  inferior  intelligent 
principle.  Perception  and  dictation  have  not  any 
perceivable  connexion.  If  by  the  last  dictate  of  the 
understanding,  be  meant  the  last  new  idea  or  thought 
of  the  mind,  the  sense  may  be  plain,  but  the  words 
are  very  improper  to  express  this  sense. 

In  sec  2.  p.  16.  we  find  as  follows :  "  If  the  imme- 
diate objects  of  the  will  are,  a  man's  own  actions,  then 
those  actions  that  appear  most  agreeable  to  him  he 
wills." 

I  know  not  what  can  be  meant  by  "  the  immedi- 
ate objects  of  the  will ;"  nor  how  a  man's  own  actions 
can  be  the  immediate  objects  of  the  will,  unless  we 
make  the  wi/l  stand  for  the  mind,  the  understanding, 
the  soul,  the  man,  the  agent,  and  any  other  terms,  if 
there  be  any  such,  that  express  all  the  power  or  pow- 
ers of  a  moral  being.  But  this  would  destroy  the 
author's  definition  of  the  will,  which  is,  that  "  the  will 
is  that  by  which  the  mind  chooses." 

Sec.  3.  p.  18.  and  on,  treats  of  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  Necessity,  Impossibility,  Irresistibility,  Inabili- 
ty, Contingency,  &.c. 

In  entering  into  an  examination  of  the  author's 
meaning  of  these  terms,  scarcely  a  gleam  of  light  af- 
fords me  its  friendly  assistance,  in  attempting  to  ex- 
plore the  impervious  way. 

It  is  suggested,  that,  as  these  terms  are  frequently 
used  in  controversies  about  free  will,  their  meaning 


232 

should  be  clearly  understood.  Until  we  are  told  pre- 
cisely what  the  will  is,  we  cannot  determine  whether 
it  is  free,  or  is  not  free  :  nor  can  we  find  out,  what 
connexion  or  relation  those  terms  have  with  the  will. 

"  The  word  necessary,  as  used  in  common  speech, 
is  a  relative  term,  and  relates  to  some  supposed  op- 
position  made  to  the  existence  of  the  thing  spoken  of, 
which  is  overcome,  or  proves  in  vain  to  hinder  or  al- 
ter it.  That  is  necessary  in  the  original  sense  of  the 
word,  which  is  or  will  be,  notwithstanding  all  sup- 
posable  opposition.  To  say  that  a  thing  is  necessa- 
ry, is  the  same  as  to  say,  that  it  is  impossible  it  should 
not  be  :  but  the  word  impossible  is  manifestly  a  re- 
lative term,  and  has  reference  to  supposed  power  ex- 
erted to  bring  a  thing  to  pass,  which  is  insufficient  for 
the  effect :  as  the  word  unable  is  relative,  and  has  re- 
lation to  ability,  or  endeavour,  which  is  insufficient : 
and  as  the  word  irresistible  is  relative,  and  has  always 
reference  to  resistance  which  is  made,  or  may  be 
made,  to  some  force  or  power  tending  to  an  effect, 
and  is  insufficient  to  withstand  the  power  or  hinder 
the  effect.  The  common  notion  of  necessity  and 
impossibility,  implies  something  that  frustrates  en- 
deavour or  desire." 

What  tendency  all  tliis  has  to  elucidate  any  of  the 
acts  of  the  mind  I  cannot  perceive  :  for  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  power  spoken  of,  refers  us  to  some  power 
that  is,  or  may  be,  exerted  after  volition  has  taken 
place,  and  therefore  it  must  mean  a  power  to  produce 
external  actions.  There  is  nothing  more  evident^ 
than  that  oftentimes  after  an  object  has  been  chosen, 


233 

it  requires  great  and  constant  exertions  to  acquire  the 
object :  and  whatever  is  here  intelligibly  said,  I  refer 
to  this  state  of  the  mind.  I  apprehend  that  there  is  an 
evident  contradiction  in  saying,  that  there  can  be  any 
relation  between  positive  and  ncgati^•e  ;  thinking  and 
not  thinking ;  choosing  and  not  choosing.  Thinking 
cannot  oppose  thinking,  nor  the  will,  the  will.  Op- 
posing a  thing  that  does  not  exist,  is  at  least  paradox- 
ical :  and  an  opposition  that  is  overcome,  must  im- 
ply some  animal  power,  which  overcomes  some  oth- 
er power  of  the  same  animal ;  but  what  relation  there 
may  be  between  these  powers,  between  one  opposition 
opposing  another  opposition,  is,  I  am  apt  to  think, 
impossible  to  find  out  :  in  truth,  it  does  not  seem 
that  there  can  be  any  relation  between  them.  If  two 
balls,  one  a  42  pounder,  and  the  other  a  12  pounder, 
should  be  discharged  from  two  cannon,  and  should 
directly  meet  each  other  in  their  progress,  the  momen- 
tum of  the  small  ball  would  be  insufficient  to  over- 
come that  of  the  large  ball.  The  comparative  mo- 
mentum of  the  one,  would  be  greater  than  that  of  the 
other.  But  I  have  not  found  in  such  cases,  the  terms 
relative  momentum  used  :  nor  do  I  perceive  any  re- 
lation between  the  two  momentums.  It  is  impossi- 
ble for  God  to  lie.  Now  I  pray  to  know  what  rela- 
tion there  is  between  the  possible,  and  impossible 
things  of  God  ?  or  between  positive  ability  and  ina- 
bility ?  for  I  cannot  perceive  any. 

"  These  terms,  necessary,  impossible,  irresistible, 
and  unable,  do  especially  belong  to  controversy  about 

2   H 


234 

liberty,  and  moral  agency,  as  used  in  the  latter  of  the 
two  senses,  viz.  as  necessary  or  impossible  to  us, 
and  in  relation  to  any  supposable  opposition,  or  en- 
deavours of  ours." 

It  was  first  said,  that  these  terms  do  especially  be- 
long to  controversies  about  free  will;  and  now,  to 
controversy  about  liberty.  But  free  will  and  liberty, 
are  not  synonymous  terms  ;  and  therefore,  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  any  propriety  in  saying,  that  the  said 
terms  belong  to  controversy  about  both  of  them.  If 
they  are  related  to,  or  belong  to  liberty,  then  we  have 
a  necessary  liberty,  an  impossible  liberty,  an  irresist- 
ible liberty,  and  an  unable  liberty  :  or  if  liberty  be  a 
power,  as  Locke  says  it  is,  then  these  epithets  may 
be  applied  to  that  power.  And  as  the  author  is  con- 
fident that  the  will  is  not  free  ;  so  I  am  as  confident, 
that,  if  these  epithets  may  be  properly  applied  to  li- 
berty, liberty  itself  is  not  free. 

"  As  the  word  necessity,  in  its  vulgar  and  common 
use,  is  relative,  and  has  always  reference  to  some  sup- 
posable insufficient  opposition ;  so  when  we  speak  of 
any  thing,  as  necessary  to  us,  it  is  with  relation  to 
some  supposable  opposition  of  our  wills,  or  some  vo- 
luntary exertion,  or  effort  of  ours  to  the  contrarj-. 
For  we  don't  properly  make  opposition  to  an  event, 
any  otherwise,  than  as  we  voluntarily  oppose  it. 
Things  are  said  to  be  what  they  must  be,  or  necessa- 
rily are,  as  to  us,  when  they  are,  or  will  be,  though 
we  desire  and  endeavour  the  contrary  ;  or  try  to  pre- 
vent, or  remove  their  existence ;  but  such  opposi- 


235 

tion  of  ours  always  ether  consists  in,  or  implies  oppo- 
sition of  the  will." 

The  autlior's  meaning  of  the  terms  relation  and  op- 
position^  are  very  recondite  and  abstruse  ;  and  may 
upon  investigation,  be  found  to  contain  such  a  so- 
phism, as  Locke's  power  to  do,  and  not  to  do.  We 
will  endeavour  to  trace  the  author's  ideas  as  well  as 
we  can. 

1st.  The  word  necessity,  in  its  vulgar  and  com- 
mon acceptation  or  use,  is  relative,  and  has  always 
reference  to  some  supposable  insufficient  opposition. 
For  example  :  A  stream  of  water  obstructed  by  a 
dam,  is  constantly  increasing  in  power,  till  it  becomes 
superior  to  that  of  the  dam,  and  sweeps  it  away.  I 
ask,  in  what  sense  is  the  insufficient  opposition  of  the 
dam  relative  ?  Natural  philosophers  compare  a  great- 
er with  a  less  power,  and  ascertain,  as  accurately  as 
they  can,  what  proportion  there  is  between  one  pow- 
er and  another.  But  I  have  not  read  of  any  attempt 
being  made,  to  find  out  the  relation  between  two  dis- 
tinct and  independent  powers.  We  know  that  pow- 
ers may  be  compared  together  ;  but  wc  have  no  data 
to  find  out  what,  and  whether  any  relation  may  be 
between  them  :  and  if  there  was,  a  knowledge  there- 
of would  not  give  us  any  light,  as  to  the  operations  of 
the  mind. 

*  "  When  we  speak  of  any  thing  as  necessary  to  us, 
it  is  with  relation  to  some  supposable  opposition  of 
our  wills,  or  some  voluntary  exertion  or  effiDrt  of  ours 
to  the  contrar}^*'  &cc. 

The  incorrectness  and  absurdity  of  this  assertion, 


236 

we  will  attempt  to  demonstrate  ;  and  we  trust  it  will 
be  no  difficult  task.  We  say,  that  when  we  sperik  of 
any  thing  as  necessary  to  us,  it  is  not  with  relation  to 
some  supposable  opposition  of  our  wills  ;  and  that  it 
is  impossible  that  it  should  be,  if  the  mind  itself  con- 
stitute the  connexion  between  the  cause  and  effect. 
Necessary  and  necessity  are  not  intelligible  terms, 
otherwise  than  by  effects.  We  shall  not  include  in 
our  observations  any  of  those  motions  and  actions^ 
which  may  arise  from  mere  instinct,  of  which  it  is 
probable  that  there  are  more  than  we  are  apt  to  think  ; 
nor  those  which  arise  from  ungovernable  passion.  If 
the  event  take  place,  as  to  us  personally,  without  any 
act  of  choice  of  our  own  ;  if,  foreseeing  this  events 
we  chose  to  exert  ourselves  to  prevent  it,  and  are  not 
able  ;  then  there  is  no  difference  between  this  event, 
and  the  event  that  happens,  from  what  the  author 
calls  the  vulgar  and  common  notions  of  necessity. 
A  greater  power  overcomes  a  less  power  ;  and  if 
this  be  the  author's  meaning,  it  affords  us  no  light 
whatever,  as  to  the  operations  of  the  mind.  But  if 
the  author  means  that  one  power  of  the  mind  op- 
poses another  power  of  the  mind,  we  think  we  have 
already  demonstrated,  that  this  can  never  be  the  case. 
It  would  be  absurd  to  say,  that  that  which  chooses 
ever  opposes  itself.  The  idea  is  no  less  absurd,  than 
what  Locke  conveys  by  these  words,  "  a  power  to  doj 
and  not  to  do; "thereby  placing  one  power  of  the  mind 
against  another  power  of  the  mind.  According  to  the 
author,  the  will  cannot  oppose  any  thing,  except  it 
be  the  mind  ;  for  he  siiys,  the  mind  chooses  by  the 


237 

\\  ill.  And  after  the  mind  has  chosen  by  the  will,  I 
ask,  what  fuitlier  has  the  will  to  do  ?  I  presume  no- 
thing— for  the  author  says,  when  a  thing  is  chosen, 
the  work  is  done,  and  nothing  more  remains  to  be 
done.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  to  talk  of  the  will's 
opposition,  is  saying  something  to  no  purpose,  or  it 
is  saying  something  that  is  absurd. 

"  'Tis  manifest  that  all  such  like  words  and  phrases, 
as  vulgarly  used,  are  used  and  accepted  in  this  man- 
ner. A  thing  is  said  to  be  necessary  when  we  can- 
not help  it,  let  us  do  what  we  will.  We  are  accus- 
tomed, in  the  common  use  of  language,  to  apply  and 
understand  these  phrases  in  this  sense  ;  so  that  the 
idea  of  a  relation  to  a  supposed  will,  desire,  and  en- 
deavour of  ours,  is  strongly  connected  with  these 
terms  :  and  if  we  use  the  words  as  terms  of  art,  in 
another  sense,  yet,  unless  we  are  exceeding  circum- 
spect and  war}',  we  shall  insensibly  slide  into  the  vul- 
gar use  of  them,  and  so  apply  the  words  in  a  very  in- 
consistent manner.  This  habitual  connexion  of  ideas, 
will  deceive  and  confound  us  in  our  reasoning,  where- 
in we  pretend  to  use  these  terms  as  terms  of  art." 

What  the  author  is  here  cautioning  us  against, 
and  what  he  wishes  precisely  to  establish,  is  not  very 
evident.  As  far,  however,  as  I  understaud  the  words, 
they  convey  no  meaning  whatever. 

To  what  is  vulgarly  and  commonly  called  neces- 
sit}^,  the  author  affixes  three  ideas.  First — A  great 
and  prevailing  power.  Secondly — A  less  and  insuf- 
ficient opposing  power.  And  thirdly — An  effect. 
When  we  use  the  specified  terms,  as  terms  of  art,  we 


5238 

must  not  use  them  in  this  sense,  but  in  some  other 
sense,  that  makes  an  event  as  sure  and  certain  to  us, 
as  the  events  that  happen  from  natural  causes.  Now, 
what  this  other  sense  is,  we  are  not  told  :  and  I  do 
not  believe  this  author,  or  any  other,  could  tell  us 
what  it  is.  And  I  do  not  think  we  are  let  into  the 
secret,  by  being  told,  that  the  idea  of  a  relation  to 
a  supposed  will,  is  strongly  connected  with  these 
terms :  for  we  may  say,  that  there  are  relations  when 
no  such  things  ever  existed.  The  idea  of  a  relation 
to  a  supposed  xvill,  is  not  strongly  connected  with  the 
specified  terms ;  because,  as  commonly  used,  no 
such  relation  is  supposed ;  and  the  idea  of  such  a 
relation,  (if  there  be  any,)  must  arise  from  extraor- 
dinary and  incorrect  refinement.  We  will  make  use 
of  the  example  we  have  before  used.  A  dam  is  un- 
able to  oppose  the  power  of  the  water ;  it  is  burst, 
and  the  waters  pass  off.  But  supposing  a  man  stands 
behind  the  dam,  and  perceiving  that  he  was  in  immi- 
nent danger,  should  put  his  shoulder  to,  and  help  the 
dam  to  resist  the  power  of  the  water  ;  the  opposition, 
though  insufficient,  would  be  voluntaiy.  If  this 
case  of  opposition  does  not  reach  the  author's  ideas, 
we  will  state  another,  and  use  the  term  mind,  as  the 
author  ought  to  ha\e  done  ;  because,  he  says  it  is 
the  mind  that  chooses;  and  that  the  opposition  is 
voluntary,  which  implies  choice.  The  mind  of  man 
voluntarily  opposes  the  Gospel  system  of  salvation — 
the  opposition  is  insufficient — the  mind  is  overcome, 
and  embraces  the  system  ;  but  then  there  is  no 
longer  any  opposition.     When  the  mind  voluntaril} 


239 

opposes  it,  it  opposes  some  other  thing— it  never  op- 
poses itself.  When  the  mind  opposes,  it  is  suppos- 
ed that  there  is  something  more  powerful  that  op- 
poses the  mind  :  but  what  this  something  is,  we  are 
not  told.  We  observe  further,  that  it  is  manifestly- 
absurd  to  say,  that  while  a  man  is  walking,  he  is  vo- 
luntarily opposed  to  rest ;  and  that  choosing  to  rest, 
he  .overcomes  that  voluntary  opposition  ;  because, 
this  is  representing  the  mind  as  acting  always  dou- 
bly, or  for  and  against  itself ;  as  when  it  chooses  to 
walk,  at  the  same  time  it  chooses  not  to  rest ;  which 
is  manifestly  absurd. 

"  It  follo\vs  from  what  has  been  said,  that  when 
these  terms,  necessary,  impossible^  irresistible^  unable, 
8vC.  are  used  in  cases  wherein  no  opposition,  or  insuf- 
ficient will,  or  endeavour,  is  supposed,  but  the  very 
nature  of  the  supposed  case  itself  excludes  and  de- 
nies any  opposition,  will,  or  endeavour,  these  terms 
are  not  then  used  in  their  proper  signification,  but 
quite  beside  their  use  in  common  speech." 

We  will  make  but  a  short  remark  here.  The 
mind  never  opposes  itself;  and  if  the  specified  terms, 
as  applied  to  the  mind,  mean  opposition  to  itself, 
they  are,  thus  applied,  manifestly  absurd.  And  if 
they  be  not  thus  applied,  but  to  some  extrinsic  op- 
poser  of  the  mind,  they  are,  thus  applied,  nothing  to 
the  author's  purpose.  That  the  mind  should  oppose 
itself,  is  impossible  :  that  other  things  may  oppose 
it,  is  no  secret ;  nor  do  we  stand  in  need  of  those 
hard  terms,  to  make  us  sensible  that  our  minds  have 
powerful  external  opponents.     The  author  says,  that 


240 

we  cannot  use  the  specified  terms,  without  reference 
to  a  supposabie  opposition,  will,  or  endeavour ;  and 
if  we  do,  we  use  them  nonsensically,  or  in  a  sense 
diverse  from  their  original  and  proper  meaning. 
Now,  as  we  are  not  told  what  is  their  original  and 
proper  meaning,  the  assertion  will  not  be  taken  for 
granted  to  be  true. 

"  It  appears,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
terms  necessary,  impossible,  irresistible,  unable,  &c. 
are  often  used,  by  philosophers  and  metaphysicians, 
in  a  sense  quite  diverse  from  the  common  use,  and 
original  signification :  for  they  apply  them  to  many 
cases  in  which  no  opposition  is  supposed,  or  suppos- 
abie. Thus  they  use  them,  with  respect  to  God's 
existence  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  So  with 
regard  to  many  of  the  dispositions  and  acts  of  the 
divine  Being  ;  such  as  his  loving  himself,  his  loving 
righteousness,  hating  sin,  &c.  So  they  apply  them 
to  many  cases  of  inclinations  and  actions  of  created 
intelligent  beings,  angels,  and  men,  wherein  all  op- 
position of  the  will  is  shut  out  and  denied,  in  the 
very  supposition  of  the  case." 

From  this  we  may  fairly  infer,  that  the  terms  can 
have  no  meaning  in  heaven,  though  it  be  said,  it  is 
impossible  for  God  to  lie  :  and  none  in  hell,  if  we 
believe  the  poet,  who  snys, — Devil  with  devil  damn- 
ed firm  concord  holds:  no  meaning  in  any  part  of 
the  universe,  except  amongst  us  miserable  inhabit- 
ants of  the  terniqueous  globe.  The  words  can  have 
no  meaning,  unless  the  mind  may  be  opposed  agninst 


241 

itself;  or  that  intelligent  beings  be  opposed  to  one 
another. 

"  Philosophical  necessity  is  really  nothing  else, 
than  the  full  and  fixed  connexion  between  the  things 
signified  by  the  subject,  and  predicate  of  a  propo. 
sition,  which  affirms  something  to  be  true.  When 
there  is  such  a  connexion,  then  the  thing  affirmed  in 
the  proposition  is  necessary,  in  a  philosophic  sense, 
whether  any  opposition  be  supposable  in  the  case 
or  no.'' 

"  When  the  subject  and  predicate  of  the  proposi- 
tion, which  affirms  the  existence  of  any  thing,  either 
substance,  quality,  act,  or  circumstance,  have  a  full 
and  perfect  connexion,  then  the  being  or  existence  of 
that  thing  is  said  to  be  necessary,  in  a  metaphysical 
sense.  And  in  this  sense  I  use  the  word  necessity, 
in  the  following  discourse,  when  I  endeavour  to 
prove,  that  necessity  is  not  inconsistent  with  liberty." 

We  have  now  three  different  meanings  given  to 
the  term  necessity.  First,  its  vulgar  and  common 
meaning,  signifying  opposition  without  will — Se- 
cond, opposition  of  the  will — and  thiidly,  metaphy- 
sical necessity.  And  in  this  sense,  necessity  is  not 
inconsistent  with  liberty.  If  liberty  be  a  power,  or 
a  circumstance  of  power,  it  is  utterly  inconceivable 
how  liberty  can  consist  in  the  existence  of  what  is 
affirmed  of  the  subject  of  a  proposition  :  for  the  ex- 
istence of  the  affirmation  is  no  power.  But  it  seems 
that  we  must  carry  along  with  us  two  distinctly  dif- 
ferent ideas  ol  the  term  necessity :  first,  opposition 

2  1 


of  will ;  and  secondly,  the  existence  of  what  is  af- 
firmed  in  a  proposlioru  And  here  we  observe,  tliat 
opposition  of  will  overcome,  if  it  be  a  power,  is  a 
power  hindered  from  acting  ;  consequently,  we  can- 
not say  that  liberty  belongs  to  it :  for  according  to 
the  author,  the  hindering  of  a  power  to  act,  is  de* 
priving  it  of  its  power  to  act.  As  the  word  necessi- 
ty, in  a  metaphysical  sense,  is  said  to  be  not  incon- 
sistent  with  libeity  ;  we  confess  we  do  not  precisely 
apprehend,  v/hat  is  meant  by  the  words  metaphysical 
sense  ;  yet  we  must  know  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  metaphysical  necessity^  before  we  can  decide 
whether  it  is,  or  is  not,  consistent  with  liberty.  If 
metaphysics  treat  of  spirit,  and  the  operations  of 
spirit,  then  I  presume  that  metaphysical  necessity,  if 
there  be  any  such  thing,  should  relate  to  the  secret 
acts  of  the  mind,  such  as  thinking,  and  acts  of  choice, 
which  are  invisible  actions.  If  this  be  the  meaning 
of  the  term,  metaphysical  necessity,  then,  Cain  killed 
Abel,  is  not  true  in  a  metaphysical  sense  :  the  external 
act  is  only  expressed  by  the  proposition.  But  Cain 
thought,  and  chose  to  kill  Abel  before  he  perpetrated 
the  horrid  deed,  is  true  in  a  metaphysical  sense. 
The  subject  and  the  predicate  here,  had  a  full  and 
perfect  connexion,  before  tiie  act  of  the  mind  could 
be  visible  to  any  one,  except  his  Maker.  Now  will 
any  one  say,  that  Cain  had  not  the  power  to  do  what 
he  did,  or  to  think,  and  then  choose  as  he  did,  before 
he  had  actually  made  the  choice  ?  And  wil  any  one 
say,  that  liberty  did  not  belong  to,  or  was  not  a  cir- 
cumstance of  that  power  ?  and  that  if  liberty  had  been 


243 

taken  from  this  power,  Cain  never  would  have  killed 
Abel  ?  W'c  therefore  say,  that  that  power  in  Cain, 
Tvhich  thoui^ht  and  chose  to  kill  Abel,  was  free,  and 
that  there  was  a  full  and  perfect  connexion  between 
the  subject  and  predicate.  If  this  be  tlie  meaning  of 
metaphysical  necessity,  I  readily  grant  that  it  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  liberty.  But  I  am  fully  satis- 
fied that  the  terms  metaphysical  necessity,  lead  to  de- 
ception and  error,  and  ought  not  to  be  used  in  this 
case.  If,  however,  the  terms  metaphysical  necessity 
are  to  have  these  ideas  affixed  to  them,  that  Cain  had 
no  free  power  to  think  and  choose  as  he  did,  before 
he  had  actually  made  the  choice,  and  the  subject  and 
predicate  were  mentally  connected,  that  is,  that  he 
had  determined  in  his  own  mind  to  kill  Abel ;  then, 
I  say,  that  metaphysical  necessity  is  an  absurdity,  and 
totally  inconsistent  with  liberty  :  because  liberty  is 
not  a  circumstance  of  power  which  connects  an  effect 
with  itself;  but  of  cause,  connexion,  and  effect. 
And  from  this  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  until 
God  had  actually  created,  he  was  not  free  to  create. 
It  is  said,  that  the  subject  and  predicate  of  a  pro- 
position that  affirms  the  existence  of  any  thing,  may 
have  a  full  and  perfect  connexion,  in  and  of  them- 
selves :  because  it  may  imply  a  contradiction,  to  sup- 
pose them  not  so  connected.  Thus  the  external  ex- 
istence of  being,  generally  considered,  is  necessary  in 
itself.  But  this  proposition  amounts  to  no  more 
than  this,  what  is,  is :  and  it  is  impossible  that  it 
should  be  otherwise.  The  subject  and  the  predicate 
are  the  same — the  predicate  only  affirms  the  exis- 


244 

tencc  of  the  subject.  Locke  has  placed  a  just  esti- 
mate on  such  general  maxims  :  they  have  little  or  no 
tendency  to  increase  our  stock  of  knowledge.  Thus 
God's  infinity  and  other  attributes  are  necessary. 
This  will  also  resolve  itself  into  a  general  maxim,  in 
which  the  predicate  affirms  nothing  new  of  the  sub- 
ject, or  nothing  but  what  is  really  in  the  subject  it- 
self. The  idea  of  God,  implies  his  infinity  and  oth- 
er attributes.  They  are,  they  exist ;  and  the  word 
necessary  cannot  imply  any  thing  more  in  it,  than 
this.  Thus  it  is  necessary  in  its  own  nature,  that 
two  and  two  should  make  four — this  is  another  of 
those  general  maxims.  Thus  again,  it  is  necessary 
that  all  right  lines  drawn  from  the  centre  of  a  circle 
to  the  circumference,  should  be  equal.  We  grant  it 
is  so,  but  this  is  in  its  own  nature  a  general  maxim, 
affirming  nothing  more,  than  that  all  equal  lines  are 
equal ;  or  that  a  circle  will  cut  the  radii  at  equal  dis- 
tances from  the  centre  of  it.  All  these  are  necessary 
truths  ;  but  of  no  importance  in  this  disquisition. 
Again  it  is  said,  that  it  is  necessary,  fit,  and  suita- 
ble, that  men  should  do  to  others  as  they  would  that 
they  should  do  to  them.  This  is  one  of  those  ideal 
eternal  truths,  which  throws  no  new  light  on  our  in- 
quiry. Whenever  the  predicate  affirms  nothing. of 
the  subject  but  what  was  always  inherent  in  it,  the 
proposition  may  be  justly  considered  as  a  trifling 
one. 

But  we  are  told  further,  that  the  "  subject  and 
predicate  of  a  proposition,  which  affirms  something  to 
be,  may  have  a  real  and  certain  connexion  conse- 


945 

qucntially,  and  so  the  existence  of  the  thing  may  be 
consequentially  necessary  :  all  future  tilings  are  ne- 
cessarj-  only  in  this  u'uy." 

\Vc  observe  here,  tliat  the  question  is  not,  whether 
things  are  as  they  are,  after  they  have  come  into  ex- 
istence ;  but  how  they  came  to  exist  after  this  and 
that  manner  ?  A  future  existence,  after  it  has  come 
uito  existence,  exists  consequentially,  and  not  an- 
tecedently. I  have  said,  and  I  still  say,  that  all  re- 
sponsibility- lies  in  volition,  which  is  a  secret  act  of 
the  mind.  The  mind  is  a  permanent  existence,  but 
volitions,  which  are  acts  of  the  mind,  follow  one 
another.  One  volition  may  be  the  sine  qua  non,  but 
not  tlie  active  cause  of  another  volition.  As  to  the 
passage  quoted,  we  ask  this  simple  question.  Does  it 
amount  to  any  thing  more  than  this,  what  is,  is  ;  and 
what  will  be,  will  be  ?  If  it  was  intended  that  it 
should  amount  to  any  thing  more,  it  is  either  begging 
the  main  question,  or  it  is  totally  irrelevant  to  it. 
Something  that  is  to  exist  in  future,  ^^•hen  it  comes 
into  existence,  must  unquestionably  be  connected 
with  something  that  had  previous  existence,  and  it  is 
impossible  it  should  be  otherwise  :  and  if  the  term 
necessary  be  applied  to  such  existence,  I  ask,  whe- 
ther it  be  in  the  vulgar,  philosophical,  or  metaphysi- 
cal sense  of  the  word  necessity  ?  or  whether  it  be  not 
more  especially  in  the  philosophical  sense,  which  the 
author  in  his  treatise  discards  *?  It  certainly  agrees 
with  the  definition  given  of  the  philosophical  sense 
of  necessit)' :  and  this,  the  author  says,  is  the  neces- 
sit}'  which  especially  belongs  to  controversicii  about 


246 

the  will.  But  that  metaphysical  necessity  is  not  in^ 
consistent  with  liberty.  Now,  as  no  future  existences 
depending  on  the  mind  come  into  existence  otherwise 
than  by  thinking,  there  must  be  one  mode  of  think- 
ing that  especially  belongs  to  the  will,  not  incompatible 
with  necessity  in  a  philosophic  sense  "c  and  there  must 
be  another  mode  of  thinking,  not  incompatible  with 
necessity  in  a  metaphysical  sense,  which  is  not  in- 
compatible with  liberty.  I  leave  it  to  the  reader  to 
find  out,  if  he  can,  these  enigmas. 

The  author  having  finished  his  remarks  on  vulgar, 
philosophic,  and  metaphysical  necessity,  proceeds  in 
the  fourth  section,  to  "  the  distinction  of  natural  and 
moral  necessity  and  inability." 

I  had  thought  that  necessity  had  been  represent- 
ed to  us  under  every  possible  shape  :  but  it  is  now 
to  assume  a  natural  and  a  moral  appearance  :  "  That 
necessity  which  has  been  explained,  consisting  in  an 
infallible  connexion  of  the  things  signified  by  the 
subject  and  predicate  of  a  proposition,  as  intelligent 
beings  are  the  subjects  of  it,  is  distinguished  into 
natural  and  moral  necessity.  I  shall  not  now  stand 
to  inquire  whether  this  distinction  be  a  proper  and 
perfect  distinction ;  but  shall  only  explain,  how 
these  two  sorts  of  necessity  are  understood,  as  the 
terms  are  sometimes  used,  and  as  they  are  used  in 
the  following  discourse.  The  phrase  moral  necessity^ 
is  used  variously :  sometimes  it  is  used  for  a  necessity 
of  moral  obligation :  sometimes  by  moral  necessity, 
is  meant  that  apparent  connexion  of  things  whicli 
is  the  ground  of  moral  evidence^  and  so  is  distinguish- 


247 

ed  from  absolute  necessity,  or  that  sure  connexion 
of  things,  that  is,  a  foundation  of  inHillible  certainty. 
In  this  sense,  moral  necessity  signifies  much  the 
same  as  that  high  degree  of  probability  which  is 
ordinarily  sufficient  to  satisfy,  and  to  be  relied  upon 
by  mankind,  in  their  conduct  and  behaviour  in  the 
world,  as  they  would  consult  their  own  interest  and 
safety,  and  treat  others  properly  as  members  of  so- 
ciety.*' 

A  single  remark  will  suffice  here  :  The  necessity 
here  spoken  of,  relates  to  external  objects  that  make 
an  impression  on  the  mind.  The  operations  of  the 
mind,  after  the  impression  is  made,  are  not  touched 
upon.  Nothing  more  here  is  implied  in  the  terms 
moral  necessity,  than  the  first,  or  simple  mode  of 
thinking ;  for  if  the  objects  were  not  percevied,  the 
mind  could  not  think  about  them. 

*'  Sometimes  by  moral  necessity^  is  meant  that 
necessity  of  connexion  and  consequence  which  arises 
from  moral  causes,  as  the  strength  of  inclination,  or 
motives,  and  the  connexion  there  is  in  many  cases 
between  these,  and  such  certain  volitions  and  actions. 
And  it  is  in  this  sense  I  use  the  phrase  moral  neces- 
sity in  the  following  discourse.'' 

The  mind  is  so  framed  by  God  himself,  that  it 
necessarily  receives  impressions  from  external  ob- 
jects ;  and  none  but  God  himself,  could  so  frame  the 
mind,  as  that  external  objects  should  make  such  an 
impression  as  to  become  objects  of  choice  ;  and  that 
if  they  do  not,  we  should  be  responsible  for  their  not 
being  objects  of  choice  to  us ;  or  for  choosing  oUier 


f\ 


248 

objects,  which  were  never  intended  to  be  objects  of 
choice  :  for  transgression  cannot  consist  in  negative, 
but  positive  acts  of  the  mind.  The  author  means  to 
use  the  phrase  moral  necessity^  in  what  follows  in 
his  discourse,  in  this  sense,  the  connexion  there  is  in 
many  cases,  (he  does  not  say  all,  J  between  volitions 
and  actions,  a?jd  inclination  or  motives.  As  to  the 
term  inclination,  it  is  too  vague  to  be  used  in  a  dis- 
quisition so  abstruse  as  the  author's.  All  the  mo- 
tives, or  grounds  of  action,  which  are  of  the  most 
essential  importance  to  man,  are  exhibited  to  him  by 
God  in  his  revelation.  Are  the  motives  sufficient  to 
produce  acts  of  volition  ?  God  knows  :  and  as  he 
has  said,  he  will  punish,  where  they  do  not  produce 
correspondent  volitions,  I  think  we  ought  to  take 
it  for  granted,  that  they  are ;  not  as  a  meritorious 
condition  of  salvation,  or  not  as  a  condition  which,  if 
executed,  merits  salvation,  but  as  a  sine  qua  non  of  it. 
These  remarks,  however,  I  make  cursorily,  not  wish- 
ing to  decide  positively  at  present  about  them.  So 
far  as  they,  arise  out  of  the  passage,  they  merit  at- 
tention. If  the  motives  contained  in  the  Gospel  are 
insufficient  to  produce  volitions  and  actions,  the 
passage  quoted,  does  not  merit  a  moment's  consi- 
deraiion.  Necessity  of  connexion,  and  necessity  of 
consequence,  are  indeed  words  ;  but  to  me  they  are 
without  meaning.  This  necessity  of  connexion  and 
consequence,  viz.  strength  of  inclination  and  mo- 
tives: these  being  external  of  the  mind,  I  do  not 
perceive  how  they  are  moral  causes;  for  I  appre- 
hend, that  in  propriety  of  speech,  a  moral  cause  is 


>.> 


249 

a  cause  that  thinks :  therefore  motives  may  be  a 
sine  qua  non  of  moral  action,  but  never  can  be,  strict- 
ly speaking,  moral  causes. 

"  Moral  necessity,  may  be  as  absolute  as  natural 
necessity,  that  is,  the  efibct  may  be  as  perfectly  con- 
nected with  its  moral  cause,  as  a  natural  necessary 
effect  is  with  its  natural  cause.  As  therefore  it  must 
be  allowed,  that  there  may  be  such  a  thing  as  a  sure 
and  perfect  connexion  between  moral  causes  and  ef- 
fects, so  this  only  is  what  I  call  by  the  name  of  mo- 
ral necessity." 

We  may  grant  all  that  is  said  here,  yet  be  none 
the  wiser  as  to  this  question,  what  is  liberty  ?  If  the 
mind  be  the  cause  of  moral  actions,  moral  neces- 
sity must  imply  actions  of  the  mind  ;  and  it  would  be 
strange  indeed,  if  actions  of  the  mind  were  not  sure- 
ly and  perfectly  connected  with  it ;  and  as  strange 
if  they  were  connected  with  it  before  the  mind  gave 
them  existence.  How  do  they  come  to  be  surely 
and  perfecdy  connected  with  the  mind,  not  being 
self-existences,  nor  existences  co-temporary  with  the 
mind  ?  Because  the  mind  has  liberty  to  give  them 
existence,  and  without  such  liberty  they  never  could 
ha\e  existed.  It  is  therefore  absurd  to  say  that  all 
the  liberty  a  man  has,  consists  in  the  sure  and  per- 
fect connexion  of  the  mind  with  its  own  actions.  Li- 
berty must  be  solely  a  circumstance  of  the  power 
that  is  the  cause  of  the  actions ;  and  these  are  an  evi- 
dence of  liberty  in  the  cause  that  produces  them. 
But  the  author  never  raised  his  views  above  mere 
consequents,  and  their  sure  and  perfect  connexion 

2  K 


250 

with  their  antecedents,  which  nobody  ever  doubteci 
of  or  denied,  either  in  a  natural  or  moral  sense.  It 
is  acknowledged  that  "^the  nature  of  things,  is  con- 
cerned in  both  natural  and  moral  necessity. 

"  I  do  not  mean  to  determine,  that  when  a  moral 
habit  or  motive,  is  so  strong,  that  the  act  of  the  will 
certainly  follows.  This  is  not  owing  to  the  nature  of 
things  ;  but  these  are  the  names  that  these  two  kinds 
of  necessity  have  usually  been  called  by  :  and  they 
must  be  distinguished  by  some  names  or  other :  for 
there  is  a  distinction  or  difference  between  them,  that 
is  very  important  in  its  consequences  :  which  differ- 
ence does  not  lay  so  much  in  the  nature  of  the  con- 
nexion, as  in  the  terms  connected.  The  cause,  with 
which  the  effect  is  connected,  is  of  a  particular  kind, 
viz.  that  which  is  of  a  moral  nature;  either  some  previ- 
ous habitual  disposition,  or  some  motive  exhibited 
to  the  understanding ;  and  the  effect  is  also  of  a  par-^ 
ticular  kind,  being  likewise  of  a  moral  nature,  con- 
sisting in  some  inclination  or  volition  of  the  soul,  or 
voluntary  action." 

If  this  passage  amounts  to  any  thing  more  than 
this,  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  between 
spirit  and  matter,  I  am  yet  to  leani  what  it  is.  Why 
does  the  author  exhibit  to  our  minds  the  operations 
of  mere  matter  so  often  ?  It  is  impossible  that  they 
should  afford  us  aiiy  ideas  of  the  operations  of  spirit. 
There  is  a  strange  mixture  of  material  and  immate- 
rial operation,  compounded  and  decompounded,  that 
have  pervaded  almost  every  passage  that  we  have 
hitherto  met  with. 


if.i 


251 

Moral  habits  and  motives,  are  supposed  to  l^e  na- 
tural, and  to  be  tlie  causes  of  acts  of  tlic  will.  But 
moral  habits  and  motives  do  not  think  ;  and  if  some- 
thing that  docs  not  think,  be  the  cause  of  action  in 
somctliing  that  does  think  ;  then  something  that  does 
not  think,  is  the  cause  of  the  acts  of  the  will,  or 
rather  of  the  mind,  and  no  reason  can  be  given  for  a 
distinction  between  natural  and  moral  necessity  ;  nor 
for  saying,.that  that  necessity  whichis  called  natural, in 
distinction  from  moral  necessity,  is  so  called  because 
mere  nature,  as  this  word  is  vulgarly  used,  is  con- 
cerned, without  any  thing  of  choice. 

How  far  inclination  and  desire,  which  are  not  acts 
of  volition,  arise  merely  from  that  inlet  of  ideas  and 
knowledge,  called  sensation  ;  and  how  far  moral  acts 
of  volition  arise  from  the  other  source  of  our  ideas 
and  knowledge,  viz.  reflection,  might  be  a  useful  in- 
quir}'.  The  correctness  of  the  following  sentence, 
must  arise  from  reflection,  *  do  to  others,  as  you  would 
have  them  do  to  you.'  Sensation  being  the  source 
of  passive  knowledge,  and  reflection  imphing  that 
knowledge  wliich  arises  from  the  active  operations 
of  the  mind,  the  great  mystery  about  moral  neces- 
sity seems  to  be  this :  after  the  existence  of  an  ef- 
fect, it  has  a  sure  connexion  with  its  cause :  and  if 
the  cause  necessarily  produced  the  effect,  then  accord- 
ing to  the  definition  given  us  of  necessity,  the  cause 
had  a  perfect  connexion  with  some  previous  cause, 
and  so  on  in  infinitum.  All  this  absurdity  arises 
from  placing  liberty  where  it  never  can  be,  or  exist, 
to  wit,  in  cause,  connexion,  and  effect.     If  it  could 


252 

possibly  be  thus  placed,  moral  necessity,  and  indeed 
natural  necessity,  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  li- 
berty. I  am  sensible  that  the  author's  definition  of 
liberty  in  his  5th  section,  places  the  existence  of  it, 
after  actual  volition :  but  it  unquestionably  belongs 
to  that  power  which  can  choose,  before  it  connectsT- 
any  eifect  with  itself.  It  is  a  circumstance  of  jthat 
power,  to  which  it  would  be  improper  to  apply  the 
term  necessity,  signifying  thereby,  cause,  connexion, 
and  effect.  Connexion  and  effect,  are  evidence  of 
power  and  liberty  that  existed  previously  to  them. 
Power  itself  implies  liberty  ;  and  without  it,  is  not  a 
power  to  any  purpose  whatever. 

"  It  must  be  observed,  that,  in  what  has  been  ex- 
plained, as  signified  by  the  name  of  moral  necessity, 
the  word  necessity  is  not  used  according  to  the  ori- 
ginal design  and  meaning  of  the  word  ;  for,  as  was  ob- 
served before,  such  terms,  necessary,  impossible,  ir- 
resistible, &c.  in  common  speech,  and  their  most 
proper  sense,  are  always  relative,  having  reference  to 
some  supposable  voluntary  opposition,  or  contrary 
will  and  endeavour,  that  is  insufficient.  But  no  such 
opposition,  or  contrary  will  and  endeavour,  is  sup~ 
posable  in  the  case  of  moral  necessity  ;  which  is  a  cer- 
tainty of  ^  the  inclination  and  Avill  itself,  v/hich  does 
not  admit  of  the  supposition  of  a  will,  to  oppose  and 
resist  itself ;  for  it  is  absurd,  to  suppose  the  same  in- 
dividual wills  to  oppose  itself,  in  its  present  act,  or  the 
present  choice  to  be  opposite  to,  and  resisting  present 
choice  :  as  absurd  as  it  is  to  talk  of  two  contrary 
motions,,  in  the  same  moving  body  at  the  same  time. 


j^^^^pjrfy-.-- ..jp^r*'         .  _^.,, 


253 

t 

And  therefore  the  very  case  supposed,  never  admitji 
of  any  trial,  whether  an  opposing  or  resisting  will 
can  overcome  the  necessity." 

This  passage  is  introduced  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
showing  the  extreme  absurdity  of  an  author's  fixing 
what  ide^  to  a  word  he  pleases.  It  must  be  evident 
to  every  one,  that  it  is  impossible  to  find  out  what  is 
the  meaning  of  the  term  necessity,  because  the  au- 
thor has  gi\'cn  at  least  five  or  six  different  defini- 
tions of  it,  and  severally  different  from  each  other : 
how  then  can  this  author  make  out  a  system  from  a 
term,  which  has  no  precise  meaning  ?  And  if  this 
term  should  be  blotted  out  of  his  system,  nothing  of 
a  system  would  remain.  I  need  not  repeat  the  ideas 
we  have  had  given  to  us,  of  vulgar,  philosophic,  and 
metaphysical  necessity,  of  natural  and  moral  necessi- 
ty, severally  different  verbally,  from  each  other.  In 
the  passage  quoted,  we  have  the  words,  "  a  certainty 
of  inclination,  and  will  itself."  Certainty  is  a  verj* 
important  word ;  but  as  applied  to  inclination  and 
will,  it  has  but  a  \tv\  vague,  and  uncertain  meaning. 
It  is  at  least  a  kind  of  certainty  that  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained otherwise  than  by  effects.  Visible  effects  have 
certainly  a  cause  :  but  to  begin  with  the  certainty 
of  the  cause,  and  to  reason  to  the  certainty  of  the  ef- 
fect, is  reasoning  a  priori,  the  most  delusive  of  all 
methods  of  reasoning,  in  a  long  train  of  hypothet- 
ical argument.  This  author  has  in  many  cases  taken 
the  high  a  priori  road. 

It  is  supposed,  that  "  none  will  deny,  but  that 
choice  in  many  cases  arises  from  nature,  as  truly  as 


254 

Gtlier  events.  The  dependence  and  connexion,  be- 
tween acts  of  volition,  or  choicCj  and  their  causes,  ac- 
cording to  established  laws,  is  not  so  sensible  and 
obvious.'* 

There  cannot  be  different  causes  for  one  and  the 
same  volition  :  the  mind,  sa)^s  the  author,  chooses  by 
the  will.  What  may  be  the  established  laws  of  the 
acts  of  volition,  is  a  secret  that  God  has  reserved  to 
himself :  but  nothing  can  be  more  sensible  and  obvi- 
ous to  a  man,  than  his  own  acts  of  volition. 

"  We  observe,  that  choice  is,  as  it  were,  a  new 
principle  of  motion  and  action,  different  from  that  es- 
tablished law  and  order  of  things  which  is  most  ob- 
vious, that  is  seen  especially  in  corporeal  and  sensi- 
ble things."  "  It  is  spoken  of,  as  if  it  were  a  principle 
of  motion,  entirely  distinct  from  nature,  and  properly 
set  in  opposition  to  it." 

This  passage  is  not  intelligible,  because  we  cannot 
ascertain,  from  what  is  said,  whether  the  mind  in  the 
act  of  choosing  is,  as  it  were,  a  new  principle  of  mo- 
tion :  or  whether,  after  the  choice  is  made,  there  is 
such  a  principle.  Be  it  which  it  may,  what  is  said 
here,  amounts  to  no  more  than  this — the  established 
laws  of  the  operations  of  spirits,  are  not  so  visible  as 
those  of  matter.  But  judging  of  both  by  effects,  they 
are  equally  visible.  It  is  true  that  there  may  be  acts 
of  volition,  tliat  may  not  be  discovered  by  any  overt, 
or  external  acts.  But  even  these  volitions  are  well 
known  to  the  mind  that  is  the  subject  of  them. 

*'  What  has  been  said  of  natural  and  moral  neces- 
sity, may  serve  to  explain  \^'hat  is  intended  by  natu- 


255 

ral  and  moral  inability.  We  are  said  to  be  naturally 
unable  to  do  a  thing,  when  we  cannot  do  it  if  we  will, 
because  what  is  commonly  called  nature,  don't  allow 
of  it ;  or  because  of  some  impeding  defect,  or  ob- 
stacle, that  is  extrinsic  to  the  will ;  either  in  the  fa- 
culty of  understanding,  constitution  of  body,  or  ex- 
ternal objects.  Moral  inability  consists  not  in  any  of 
these  things :  but  either  in  the  want  of  inclination^ 
or  the  strength  of  contrary  inclination ;  or  the  want  of 
sufficient  motives  in  view,  to  induce  and  excite  the 
acts  of  the  will :  or  the  strength  of  apparent  motives 
to  the  contrary' ;  or  both  these  may  be  resolved  into 
one  :  and  it  may  be  said  in  one  word,  that  moral  ina- 
bility consists  in  the  opposition,  or  want  of  inclination. 
For  when  a  person  is  unable  to  will  or  choose  such  a 
thing,  through  a  defect  of  motives,  it  is  the  same  thing 
as  his  being  unable  through  the  want  of  inclination^ 
or  the  prevalence  of  contrar}'^  inclination,  in  such  cir- 
cumstances, and  under  the  influence  of  such  views." 
We  ought  constantly  to  keep  in  our  minds,  that  the 
very  end  and  design  of  this  author  is  to  proAC,  tliat 
the  will  is  not  free.  Now  if  all  that  he  has  said 
about  necessity^  in  any  of  the  many  and  various  sen- 
ses he  has  given  us  of  the  term,  are  totally  irrelevant 
;^  to  the  freedom  of  the  will,  or  that  power  in  us,  be 
it  what  it  may,  that  chooses  ;  then  we  observe,  that 
if  "  what  has  been  said  of  natural  and  moral  necessity, 
may  serve  to  explain  what  is  intended  by  natural  and 
moral  inability,  it  must  convince  any  one,  that  these 
terms  have  no  relation  to  free  will,  or  tlie  fre<?dom  of 
that  power  in  us  which  cho0?<?s.'' 


256 

In  the  first  place,  let  us  consider  attentively,  wiiat 
is  said  of  natural  inability.  "  We  are  naturally  una- 
ble to  do  a  thing,  when  we  cannot  do  it,  if  we  will." 
Here  the  author  pointedly  contradicts  himself:  for  he 
says  in  another  place,  that  the  willing  of  a  thing  is 
the  doing  of  it,  and  that  nothing  more  remains  to  be 
done.  The  supposition  here  is,  that  the  mind  by  the 
will  has  chosen  to  do  a  thing,  but  upon  experiment 
there  is  a  want  of  power ;  and  as  this  want  of  power 
must  necessarily  be  extrinsic  of  the  will,  it  can  mean 
nothing  else,  than  a  want  of  what  may  be  called  ani- 
mal strength.  It  is  said  further,  that  the  defect,  or 
obstacle,  is  extrinsic  to  the  will,  and  in  the  under- 
standing, constitution  of  body,  or  external  objects. 
The  supposition  is,  that  a  man  wills  to  do  a  thing ; 
but  now  we  find  he  does  it  without  any  understand- 
ing, which  is  plainly  incorrect.  To  select  and  choose 
an  object  without  knowing  any  thing  about  it,  is  im- 
possible. 

In  the  second  place,  we  are  told  that  moral  inability 
consists  not  in  any  of  these  things  ;  that  is,  in  want 
of  power,  if  we  will;  in  want  of  understanding, 
constitution  of  body,  or  external  objects ;  but  in 
want  of  inclination,  the  strength  of  contrary  inclina- 
tion— the  want  of  sufficient  motives  in  view,  to  ex- 
cite acts  of  the  will,  or  the  strength  of  apparent  mo- 
tives to  the  contrary  ;  that  is,  in  one  word,  moral  in- 
ability consists  in  the  opposition,  or  want  of  inclina- 
tion. 

It  must  be  evident  to  every  one,  that  the  distinction 
made  between  natural  and  moral  inability,  has  no 


257 

kind  of  analogy.  The  powers  of  the  mind  are  the 
subject  in  both  cases.  From  what  is  said,  we  may 
clearly  perceive  that  the  author  places  natural  inabili, 
ty,  after  choice  is  actually  made ;  and  moral  inability, 
before  choice  is  actually  made  :  and  that  in  natural  in- 
ability, choosing  is  not  doing  ;  something  remains  to 
be  done  after  choosing.  But  in  moral  inability  there 
is  no  act  of  choosing.  If  there  were,  the  \'er}'  choos- 
ing would  be  the  doing,  and  nothing  more  would  re- 
main  to  be  done. 

Now  we  cannot  perceive  any  reason  why  natural 
inability',  is  placed  after  choice  is  actually  made,  and 
moral  inability  before  any  choice  is  made.    As  to  the 
first,  a  man  can  ascertain  the  fact,  whether  he  has  bo- 
dily strengtli  to  perform  what  he  has  chosen  :   as  to 
the  second,  placing  moral  inability  before  choice,  it 
appears  to  me  that  God  only  can  decide,  whether 
motives  that  do  not  excite  volitions,  ought  to  have 
excited  them.      He  that  can  discuss  this  question  in- 
telligibly, must  be  well  acquainted  with  the  secret 
counsels  of  God.      If  natural  inability  supposes  the 
existence  of  an  act  of  choice,  but  want  of  strength  ; 
then  natural  ability  must  suppose  the  existence  of 
both  of  them,  which  fully  qualify  to  perform  the  ac- 
tion chosen :   and  if  moral  ability  does  not  amount  to 
the  same  thing  precisely,  I  am  unable  to  suggest, 
wherein  a  distinction  may  be  made  between  them.   It 
is  an  arbitrary  assumption,  to  place  natural  inability  af- 
ter an  act  of  choice,  and  moral  inability  before  it.     It 
is  manifest,  that  there  would  be  no  difff^rence  between 

2   7 


258 

the  two,  if  moral  inability  was  placed  after  actual  to- 
jiition.  Now  I  undertake  to  deny,  that  in  a  moral 
sense,  actually  choosing  is  doing,  and  that  nothing 
more  remains  to  be  done  :  and  if  I  am  here  correct,  the 
distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability,  and 
natural  and  moral  ability,  vanishes  at  once :  for  in  a 
moral  sense,  the  thing  is  no  more  performed  after 
the  choice  is  made,  than  it  is  in  a  natural  sense. 

A  man  is  not  disposed  and  inclined  to  love  his 
neighbour,  and  does  not  choose  to  evidence  any 
acts  of  love  towards  him  ;  yet  disposition  and  incli- 
nation are  not  innate  principles ;  and  if  not,  two  ver\ 
vague  terms  are  used  to  little  or  no  purpose. 

If  this  author,  or  any  other,  can  prove  that  in  all 
moral  cases,  the  actual  choosing  of  an  object  is  tlie 
actual  acquisition  of  it,  then,  if  there  be  such  a  thing 
as  moral  inability,  it  must  precede  choice.  As  this 
author  lays  it  down  as  a  truth,  that  no  powers  of  the 
mind  are  wanting,  the  inability  must  be  in  some 
external  thing,  such  as,  the  object  is  not  sufficient 
to  excite  volition.  Of  this,  as  I  have  said  before, 
God  is  the  sole  judge,  who  knows  how  to  adapt  the 
means  for  the  end.  And  it  would  be  little  less  than 
blasphemy  in  us,  to  say,  that  God  has  not  adapted 
the  means  to  the  end ;  and  yet,  that  he  will  punish, 
if  ineffectual  means  do  not  produce  an  effectual  end. 
If  choosing  salvation  on  Gospel  terms>  be  not  the 
actual  acquisition  of  the  object  chosen ;  and  I  ap- 
pic'iend  that  few  will  carry  their  ideas  so  high  as  to 
say  tiiat  there  is  no  difference  between  choosing^  and 
pcsrsessing  an  object ;  then  we  might  say  it  ^vas  the 


250 

o'me  qua  non,  not  the  active  cause,  of  acquiring  the 
object  chohcn.  If  Paul  planted  and  Apollos  watered^ 
they  no  doubt  did  it  of  choice,  but  God  reserved  to 
himself  the  power  of  giving  tlie  increase,  and  of  con- 
necting tlie  end  with  the  means ;  so  that  no  door  is 
left  open  for  any  one  to  boast  of  his  own  powers  to 
save  himself  upon  Gospel  terms.  And  placing  the 
commencement  of  moral  inabiUty  precisely  ^vhere 
this  author  has  placed  the  commencement  of  natural 
inability,  will  unquestionably  afford  entirely  different 
views  from  those  which  this  author  has  given  us  of 
moral  inabilit)-,  and  of  responsibility'.  It  places  the 
last  on  clear  and  more  rational  grounds,  than  it  can 
possibl}'  be  placed,  if  we  place  the  commencement 
of  moral  inability  before  actual  choice :  for  by  so 
doing,  a  foundation  is  laid  for  supposing  every  man 
has  two  wills,  one  opposing  the  other. 

The  following  inference,  we  think,  is  a  just  one :  if 
one  s}stem,  no  more  than  the  other,  makes  man  the 
active  cause  of  his  own  salvation,  then  that  which  is 
clearest  of  diSiculties  ought  to  be  adojDted. 

We  will  now  introduce  a  few  passages  from  the  au- 
thor respecting  his  ideas  of  moral  inability, 

"  A  woman  of  great  honour  and  chastity,  may 
have  a  moral  inability  to  prostitute  herself  to  her 
slave." 

.5-  *'  A  strong  habit  of  virtue,  and  a  great  degree  of 
holiness,  may  cause  a  moral  inability  to  love  ^vicked- 
ness  in  general ;  may  render  a  man  unable  to  take 
complacence  in  wicked  persons  or  things,  or  to  choose 
wicked  life,  and  prefer  it  to  a  virtuous  life,'* 


260 

"  On  the  other  hand,  a  great  degree  of  habitual 
wickedness,  may  lay  a  man  under  an  inability  to  love 
and  choose  holiness ;  and  render  him  utterly  unable 
to  love  an  infinitely  holy  Being,  or  to  choose  and 
cleave  to  him  as  his  chief  good." 

"  It  must  be  observed  concerning  moral  inability 
in  each  kind  of  it,  that  the  word  inability  is  used  in 
a  sense  very  diverse  from  its  original  import.  The 
word  signifies  only  a  natural  inability,  in  the  proper 
use  of  it :  and  is  applied  to  such  cases  only,  where- 
in a  present  will,  or  inclination  to  the  thing,  with  re> 
spect  to  which  a  person  is  said  to  be  unable,  is  sup- 
posable.  It  cannot  be  truly  said,  according  to  the 
ordinary  use  of  language,  that  a  malicious  man,  let 
him  be  never  so  malicious,  cannot  hold  his  hand 
from  striking,  or  that  he  is  not  able  to  show  his  neigh- 
bour kindness :  or  that  a  drunkard,  let  his  appetite 
be  never  so  strong,  cannot  keep  the  cup  from  his 
mouth.  In  the  strictest  propriety  of  speech,  a  man 
has  a  thing  in  his  power,  if  he  has  it  in  his  choice,  or 
^t  his  election.  And  a  man  cannot  be  truly  said  to 
be  unable  to  do  a  thing,  when  he  can  do  it  if  he  will. 
It  is  improperly  said,  that  a  person  cannot  perform 
those  external  actions,  which  are  dependent  on  acts 
of  the  will ;  and  which  would  easily  be  perforn\^d, 
if  the  act  ol"  the  will  were  present :  and  if  it  be  impro- 
perly said,  that  he  cannot  perform  those  external 
voluitaiy  actions,  which  depend  on  the  will,  it  is  in 
some  respect  more  improperly  said,  that  he  is  unable 
to  exert  the  acts  of  the  will  tliemselves :  because  it 
is  more  evidently  false,  witli  respect  to  these,  tliat  he 


261 

cinnot  if  he  will :  for  to  say  so,  is  downright'contra- 
diction  :  it  is  to  say,  he  cannot  will  if  he  does  will. 
And  in  this  case,  not  only  is  it  true,  that  it  is  easy 
for  a  man  to  do  the  thing  if  he  will ;  but  the  very 
willing  is  the  doing.  When  once  he  has  willed,  the 
thing  is  performed,  and  nothing  remains  to  be  done. 
Therefore  in  these  things  to  ascribe  a  non-perform- 
ance to  a  want  of  power  or  ability,  is  not  just :  be- 
cause the  thing  wanting,  is  not  a  being  able,  but  a 
being  willing.  There  are  faculties  of  mind,  and  ca- 
pacity of  nature,  and  every  thing  else  sufficient,  but 
a  disposition  :  nothing  is  wanting  but  a  will." 

SECTION    V. 

>*  Concernmg  the  notion  of  liberty  a7td  moral  agency. '^'^ 

A  FEW  remarks  on  the  section  will  suffice  ;  be- 
cause I  do  not  perceive  any  material  difference  be- 
tween Locke's  ideas  of  liberty  in  his  chapter  on  power, 
and  this  author's  in  this  section.  He  says,  that  he 
iieed  say  the  less  on  this  head,  Mr.  Locke  having  set 
the  ^ame  forth,  with  so  great  clearness  in  his  Essay 
on  Human  Understanding. 

"  The  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  words 
freedom  and  liberty  in  common  speech,  is  power; 
opportunity,  or  advantage  that  any  one  has  to  do  as 
he  pleases.  Or  in  other  words,  his  being  free  from 
hindcrance,  or  impediment  in  the  way  of  doing,  or 
conducting  in  any  respect  as  he  wills.  And  the  con- 
traiT  to  liberty,  whatever  name  we  call  that  by,  is  a 


person's  being  hindered  or  unable,  to  conduct  as  he 
will,  or  being  necessitated  to  do  otherwise." 

It  would  have  destroyed  the  author's  system,  if  he 
had  here  allowed  that  necessity  is  the  contrary  of  li- 
berty, and  yet  whatever  comes  into  existence,,  de- 
void of  thought,  must  exist  necessarily,  and  no  liber- 
ty whatever  can  be  ascribed  to  it.  This  belongs  to 
the  power  that  produced  it ;  yet  the  author  seems  to 
have  been  constrained  to  use  the  word  necessitated^ 
m  describing  the  contrary  of  liberty.  The  author's 
definition  of  liberty  is  incorrect  in  all  its  parts  ;  for 
liberty  is  not  power,  nor  opportunity,  nor  advantage. 
It  is  inseparably  connected  with  power  :  for  power 
without  liberty  is  no  power  at  all :  the  very  term  pow- 
er implies  liberty — and  its  contrary,  whatever  it  may 
be,  no  power. 

"If  this  which  I  have  mentioned,  be  the  meaning 
of  the  word  liberty^  in  the  ordinary  use  of  language, 
as  I  trust  that  none,  that  has  ever  learned  to  talk,  will 
deny ;  then  it  will  follow,  that  in  propriety  of  speech, 
neither  liberty,  nor  its  contrary,  can  properly  be  as- 
cribed to  any  being,  or  thing,  but  that  which  has 
such  a  faculty,  power,  or  property,  as  is  called  will. 
For  that  which  is  possessed  of  no  such  thing  as  will, 
cannot  have  any  power,  or  opportunity  of  doing  ac- 
cording to  its  will,  nor  be  necessitated  to  act  contrary 
to  its  will,  nor  be  restrained  from  acting  agreeably  to 
it.  And  therefore  to  talk  of  liberty,  or  the  contrar}-, 
as  belonging  to  the  very  will  itself,  is  not  to  speak 
good  sense,  if  we  may  judge  of  -sense  and  nonsense 
by  the  original  proper  signification  of  the  words. 


263 

For  tlie  will  itself  is  not  an  agent,  that  has  a  will :  the 
power  of  choosing,  itself,  has  not  a  power  of  choosing. 
That  which  has  the  power  of  \olition,  or  choice,  h 
the  man,  or  the  soul,  and  not  the  power  of  volition  it- 
self. And  he  that  has  the  liberty  of  doing  according 
to  his  will,  is  the  agent  or  doer,  who  is  possessed  ol' 
the  will,  and  not  the  will  which  he  is  possessed  of." 

In  the  first  place  I  observe  here,  that  I  am  one  of 
those  unlearned  prejudiced  people,  who  deny  that  li- 
berty means  power,  opjiortunity,  or  advantage. 

And  in  the  second  place,  if  the  author's  sense  of 
liberty  be  right,  yet  we  may  safely  deny  the  conse- 
quence he  draws  Irom  it ;  which  is,  that  in  propriety 
of  speech,  neither  liberty,  nor  its  contrary,  can  pro- 
perly be  ascribed  to  any  being,  or  thing,  but  that 
which  has  such  a  faculty,  power  or  property  as  is 
called  will.      Perhaps  a  more  absurd  consequence 
was  never  drawn  from  more  absurd  premises.     For 
if  liberty  is  not  a  power,  and  the  will  is  not  a  power, 
as  they  surely  are  not,  and  the  inference  says,  that  li- 
berty cannot  be  ascribed  to  any  tiling,  but  that  which 
has  a  will,   we  agree  that  the  contrary  of  liberty, 
can  belong  only  to  that  which  has  no  power.      But 
the  being  or  thing,  that  has  will,  is  free  ;  the  will  how- 
ever is.  not  free :  wliat  then  can  the  being  be,  and 
what  can  the  will  be  ?  There  can  be  no  freedom  with- 
out it,  and  yet  it  is  not  free  itself.       That  the  will 
should  be  essential  to  liberty,  and  yet  not  be  free  it- 
self, cannot,  in  my  humble  opinion,  be  reconciled  with 
reason.      Locke  makes  thinking  essential  to  a  w'lU, 
for  he  says  that  there  can  be  no  will  without  it.    And 


^64 

this  author  makes  will  essential  to  liberty,  but  has 
!K)t  told  us  what  the  will  is. 

The  reason  given  to  establish  the  consequence,  is 
as  strange  as  the  consequence  itself.  "  For  that 
which  is  possessed  of  no  such  thing  as  will,  cannot 
have  any  power,  or  opportunity  of  doing  according 
to  its  will."  We  grant  it  is  so — but  till  we  know 
what  the  will  is,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  It  is 
in  fact  no  reason  at  all :  for  if  the  inference  were  cor- 
rect, it  contains  all  that  is  contained  in  the  reason  gi- 
ven  to  support  it.  The  inference  says  nothing  is  free 
that  has  not  a  will.  The  reason  says,  that  which  has 
no  will,  cannot  act  according  to  its  will.  Now  what 
do  the  words  "  its  will"  mean,  if  it  has  no  will  ?  They 
surely  cannot  corroborate  the  inference.  To  the 
reason,  however,  is  annexed  another  inference  : 
"  therefore  to  talk  of  liberty,  or  the  contrary,  as  be- 
longing to  the  very  will  itself,  is  not  to  speak  good 
sense,  if  we  judge  of  sense  and  nonsense  by  the  ori- 
ginal and  proper  signification  of  words."  The  vul- 
gar sense  of  words,  and  the  original  and  proper  sense 
of  words,  this  author  intimates  that  he  understood 
perfectly.  I  think,  however,  he  should  have  given 
us  such  clear  definitions  of  words,  or  not  have  used 
them,  that  his  reader  might  have  known  what  he 
meant  by  them.  What  the  connexion  may  be,  be- 
tvveen  the  last  inference,  and  what  precedes  it,  cannot 
be  discovered  :  for  the  argument  is,  liberty  or  its  con- 
trary, cannot  be  ascribed  to  any  thing  that  has  not  a 
will ;  for  that  which  has  not  a  will,  cannot  act  accord- 
ing to  its  v/i\[ :  therefore  to  talk  of  liberty  as  belong- 


265 

iwg  to  tlic  will  itself,  is  nonsense.    We  confess  w-e  do 
not  perceive  any  force  in  this  incoherent  connexion 
of  words  together.      But  another  reason  follows,  to 
corroborate  the  whole  argument :  "  For  the  will  it- 
self is  not  an  agent  that  has  a  will."      If  the  will  be  a 
distinct  thing  from  the  agent,  and  there  can  be  no  li- 
berty where  there  is  no  will,  the  consequence  is  inevit- 
able that  the  will  is  not  only  free,  but  that  there  can  be 
no  freedom  without  it :  and  the  words,  "  will  itself 
is  not  an  agent  that  has  a  will,"  are  superfluous,  for 
tlie  will  cannot  be  without  the  agent,  nor  can  the 
agent  be  without  the  will.      What  then  is  the  agent, 
and  what  is  the  will  ?  The  reason  proceeds,   *'  the 
power  of  choosing,  itself,  has  not  a  power  of  choos- 
ing."    This  is  a  palpable  contradiction  :  for  nobody 
can  extort  from  these  words,  this  meaning,  the  pow- 
er that  chooses  does  not  choose,  but  has  another  pow- 
er which  chooses  for  it.      The  mind  has  the  power 
of  choosing ;  it  is  itself,  and  not  another  self :  to  say 
then  that  the  mind  has,  and  has  not  the  power  ©r 
choosing,  must  be  false  in  fact.      Further,   "  that 
which  has  the  power  of  volition,  or  choice,  is  the 
man,  or  the  soul,  and  not  the  power  of  volition  itself." 
Thus  we  find  that  the  will  has  been  considered  as  the 
active  power  of  choosing  ;  but  here  it  is  said  that  it  is 
not  the  will,  but  the  man,  that  has  the  power  of  choos- 
ing ;  and  if  the  will  ever  be  used  to  signify  the  pow- 
er of  choosing,  the  meaning  of  it  ought  to  be  the 
mind  choosing,  or  that  mode  of  thinking  which  may 
be  denominated  choosing ;  and  then  we  should  rid 

2    M 


266 

ourselves  of  the  manifest  impropriety  of  saying  that 
the  will  chooses,  and  that  it  does  not  choose  ;  and  of 
the  absurdity  and  nonsense  of  saying  that  the  man  is 
free,  but  the  will  is  not  free  ;  and  that  the  man,  the 
soul,  has  the  power  of  choice,  and  not  the  power  it- 
self of  volition.  Whether  it  be  the  man,  the  soul  or 
the  agent  that  chooses,  in  the  act  of  choosing  there 
is  an  exercise  of  some  kind  of  power ;  and  if  volition 
be  the  effect  of  that,  it  would  unquestionably  be  ab- 
surd to  say,  that  the  effect  had  a  power  of  choosing  : 
and  if  this  be  the  idea  that  is  meant  to  be  conveyed 
by  these  words,  "  and  not  the  power  of  volition  itself,'' 
we  cannot  perceive  that  they  were  introduced  as  be- 
ing pertinent  to  any  thing  that  the  author  is  endea- 
vouring to  establish ;  for  I  cannot  think,  that  any  one 
ever  supposed  that  an  effect  was  the  cause  of  itself. 

The  reason  says  further,  "  he  that  has  the  libert}" 
of  doing  according  to  his  will,  is  the  agent  or  doer, 
who  is  possessed  of  the  will,  and  not  the  will  which 
he  is  possessed  of."  Tl"ie  purport  of  this  sentence  is, 
that  after  the  will  has  made  its  choice,  and  directed 
something  to  be  done,  then  the  power  that  executes 
that  direction  is  a  free  power  ;  and  as  to  the  execu- 
tion of  the  direction,  after  the  will  has  made  its  choice, 
the  will  itself  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  there  must  be 
another  supposed  power  at  hand  directed  by  the  will, 
which  executes :  and  from  this  it  is  most  absurdly 
inferred  that  the  will  is  not  free  ;  but  that  power  is 
which  executes  the  direction  of  the  will.  This  is  a 
direct  contradiction  to  wliat  the  author  has  said,  viz. 
willing  is  doing,  and  nothing  more  remains  to  be 


267 

done.  But  if  a  man  is  li-ee  to  do,  after  volition  has 
taken  place,  how  can  it  follow  from  this,  that  he  was 
not  free  in  the  previous  act  of  the  will  ?  Analogy  it- 
self seems  plainly  to  establish  the  fact,  that  if  there 
be  freedom  in  one  act,  there  must  be  freedom  in  the 
other  act. 

*'  To  be  free,  is  the  property  of  an  agent,  who  is 
possessed  of  powers  and  faculties,  as  much  as  to  be 
cunning,  valiant, bountiful,  or  zealous;  but  these  qual- 
ities are  the  properties  of  persons,  and  not  the  proper* 
ties  of  properties.*' 

These  ideas  are  borrowed  from  Locke,  and  if  they 
amount  to  any  thing,  they  are  totally  irrelevant  to  the 
subject  in  hand. 

Power  can  no  more  exist  without  liberty,  than 
body  without  figure  ;  but  figure  is  not  the  property 
of  body,  nor  liberty  of  power.  It  is  said,  that  an 
agent  possesses  powers  and  faculties.  What  are  these 
powers  and  faculties  ?  If  they  constitute  the  agent, 
then  we  are  told  that  qualities  are  the  properties  of 
persons,  and  not  of  properties,  and  to  ascribe  one  pro- 
perty to  another,  is  absurd  :  and  if  so,  it  will  follow 
that  an  agent  is  a  distinct  thing  from  his  powers  and 
faculties,  though  they  be  the  very  essence  of  the 
^gent.  We  may  therefore  be  sure,  that  if  the  agent 
be  free,  the  powers  that  constitute  the  agent  must  be 
free.  Is  the  will  a  power  ?  If  so,  it  is  free  :  if  it  be 
not  a  power,  then  it  cannot  be  free  ;  fox  where  there 


268 

IS  no  power,  there  can  be  no  liberty ;    and  where 
there  is  no  liberty,  there  can  be  no  power. 

*'  But  that  which  has  no  will,  cannot  be  the  subject 
of  these  things,"  that  is»  of  constraint,  and  restraint. 

From  this  we  may  infer,  that  that  which  has  a  will 
may  be  constrained  and  restrained,  and  that  these 
circumstances  could  not  happen,  if  there  were  no  li- 
berty. Now  if  it  be  a  fact,  that  that  which  has  no  will 
cannot  be  constrained,  nor  restrained,  and  that  that 
which  has,  can ;  it  follows  inevitably,  that  the  will 
must  be  a  free  power :  for  the  multiplication  of 
oughts  into  oughts,  (if  it  be  possible  to  multiply 
nothing  into  nothing,)  will  be  but  oughts :  but  ac- 
cording to  the  author  the  will  is  not  a  mere  cypher  ; 
it  is  the  very  sine  qua  non  of  liberty. 

One  thing  more  I  would  observe  concerning  what 
is  vulgarly  called  liberty:  namely,  that  power  and 
opportunity  for  one  to  do,  and  conduct  as  he  will,  or 
according  to  his  choice,  is  all  that  is  meant  by  it ; 
without  taking  into  the  meaning  of  the  word  any  thing 
of  the  cause,  or  original  of  that  choice,  or  consider- 
ing at  all  how  the  person  came  to  have  such  a  voli- 
tion, whether  it  was  caused  by  some  external  motive, 
or  internal  habitual  bias  :  whether  it  was  determined 
by  some  internal  antecedent  volition,  or  whether  it 
liappened  without  a  cause  :  whether  it  was  necessari- 
ly  connected  with  something  foregoing,  or  not  con- 
nected :  let  the  person  come  by  his  choice  how  he 
will ;  yet  if  he  is  able,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the 


269 

Way  to  hinder  his  pursuing  and  executing  his  vvili, 
t!ie  man  is  fully  and  perfectly  free,  acccrding  to  the 
primary  and  common  notion  of  freedom.'' 

I  have  never  met  with  any  author  but  this,  who 
continually  appeals  to  the  vulgar  sense  of  words,  to 
establish  the  correctness  of  his  own  ideas.  And 
how  this  author  became  to  be  so  perfectly  acquainted 
with  the  ideas  of  the  unlearned,  he  has  not  told  us  ; 
nor  has  he  told  us  why  we  should  appeal  to  them  as 
a  standard  of  correctness.  If,  however,  tlie  unlearn- 
ed, whom,  it  is  presumed,  the  author  means  when 
he  uses  the  term  vulgar,  universally  decide  that  man 
is  a  free  agent,  both  antecedently  and  consequently, 
to  willing  or  choosing  ;  or  without  knowing  precise- 
ly when  liberty  commences,  decide,  that  man  is  a  free 
agent  both  as  to  willing  and  doing ;  the  -vulgar  sense 
of  liberty  is  against  this  author. 

"  But  the  word  liberty,  as  used  by  Arminians, 
Pelagians,  and  others,  who  oppose  the  Calvinists,  has 
an  entirely  different  signification.  These  several 
:hings  belong  to  their  notion  of  liberty. 

1st.  "  That  it  consists  in  a  self-determining  power 
in  the  will,  or  a  certain  sovereignty  the  will  has  over 
itself,  and  its  own  acts,  whereby  it  determines  its  own 
\  olitions,  so  as  not  to  be  dependent  in  its  determina- 
tions on  any  cause  without  itself,  nor  determined  by 
any  thing  prior  to  its  own  acts." 

2d.  "  Indifference  belongs  to  liberty  in  their  notion 
of  it :  or  that  the  mind  previous  to  the  act  of  volition 
be  in  equilibrio. 
-  3d.  "  Contingence  is  another  thing  that  belongs, 


270 

and  is  essential  to  it,  not  in  the  common  acceptation 
of  the  word,  as  that  has  already  been  explained,  but 
us  opposed  to  all  necessity,  or  any  fixed  and  certain 
connexion  with  some  previous  ground,  or  reason  of 
its  existence.  They  suppose  the  essence  of  liberty 
so  much  to  consist  in  these  things,  that  unless  the  will 
of  man  be  free  in  this  sense,  he  has  no  real  freedom, 
how  much  soever  he  may  be  at  liberty  to  act  accord- 
ing to  his  own  will." 

The  author  makes  no  comments  here.  If,  however, 
he  had  proved  that  the  three  articles  of  the  Armi- 
nians  and  Pelagians  are  incorrect ;  it  will  not  from 
thence  follow  that  his  system  is  correct.  This  au- 
thor certainly  allows  that  there  is  a  self-acting  power 
in  man  that  is  free ;  but  he  will  not  acknowledge 
that  there  is  a  self- willing  power  that  is  free.  If  the 
will  be  a  power,  and  if  liberty  be  as  essential  to  pow-» 
er,  as  figure  is  to  body,  then  the  will  must  be  free.i 
This  author  sometimes  uses  the  term  willj  signifying 
thereby  power  ;  and  sometimes  it  is  so  used  as  that 
it  cannot  intend  power ;  so  that  in  one  sense  it  must 
be  free,  and  in  another  sense  it  cannot  be  free.  His 
definition  of  the  term  will,  precludes  the  idea  of  its 
being  a  power ;  viz.  "  the  will  Is  that  by  which  the 
mind  chooses.*'  If  this  were  a  correct  definition, 
the  question  that  would  arise  on  it,  would  be,  is  the 
mind  free  in  choosing  ?  or  in  other  words,  is  the  mind 
a  power  ?  if  not,  we  must  still  pursue  the  inquiry,  till 
we  come  to  something  that  is  a  power. 

The  author's  definition  of  a  moral  agent  is  not  en- 
tirely free  from  objections :  but  I  do  not  perceive 


271 

that  it  has  any  thing'  to  do  with  Uie  freedom  of,  or 
want  of  freedom  in  the  will. 

"  A  moral  agent  is  a  being  that  is  capable  of  those 
actions  tliat  have  a  moral  quality,  and  which  can  pro- 
perly be  denominated  good  or  evil,  in  a  moral  sense, 
virtuous  or  vicious,  commendable  or  faulty." 

If  this  discription  of  a  moral  agent  be  correct,  it 
Avill  seem  to  follow,  that  they  may,  to  all  eternity, 
be  capable  of  good  or  bad  actions,  which  militates 
against  an  invariable  course  of  rectitude  and  the  final 
perseverance  of  the  saints.  I  can  scarcely  believe, 
that  moral  agency  consists  in  a  power  to  do  good, 
and  in  a  power  to  do  evil.  We  may  observe  furdier, 
that  according  to  other  opinions  of  the  author,  man 
in  his  fallen  state,  is  only  capable  of  bad  actions,  and 
therefore  not  a  moral  agent ;  and  that  the  only  be- 
ings that  are  capable  of  good  and  bad  actions,  are 
those  who  are  regenerated,  but  not  removed  from 
trials  and  temptations  :  for  this  author  explicitly  de- 
nies that  man,  in  his  fallen  state,  has  a  capacity  to  be 
influenced  by  moral  inducements  or  motives.  How 
then  can  he  be  a  moral  agent?  Angels  and  man, 
who  fell  from  their  first  holy  state,  were  not  in- 
variably influenced  by  moral  motives ;  and  when 
any  good  reason  can  be  given  why  they  were  not, 
then  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  universe  will  no 
longer  be  a  mystery  to  us.  It  is  in  the  highest  de- 
gree probable,  that  fallen  angels,  have  intelligence 
far  superior  to  what  fallen  man  has.  Yet  God  has 
not,  so  far  as  we  know,  or  have  any  reason  to  believe, 
exhibited  to  their  moral  facultv  anv  moral  induce- 


272 

ments,  or  motives,  that  can  have  any  tendency  to  in- 
fluence them  to  conduct  agreeably  to  a  moral  facul- 
ty. It  must  therefore  be  confessed,  that  if  fallen  an- 
gels have  a  moral  faculty,  it  is  impossible  that  they 
should  act  conformably  to  it. 

The  last  paragraph  in  this  5th  section,  appears  to 
me  to  represent  God  as  acting  from  inducements 
and  motives  in  the  same  way  that  created  and  de- 
rived intelligent  beings  act ;  and  if  so,  it  is  a  very  im- 
proper way  of  speaking.  / 
*'  The  essential  qualities  of  a  moral  agent,  arc  in 
God  in  the  greatest  possible  perfection  :  such  as  un- 
derstanding to  perceive  the  difference  betwen  moral 
good  and  evil ;  a  capacity  of  discerning  that  moral 
worthiness  and  demerit,  by  which  some  things  are 
praise- worthy,  others  deserving  of  blame  and  pu- 
nishment ;  and  also  a  capacity  of  choice,  and  choice 
guided  by  understanding,  and.a  power  of  acting  ac- 
cording to  his  choice  and  pleasure,  and  being  ca- 
pable of  doing  those  things  which  are  in  the  highest 
sense  praise- worthy." 

The  same  absurdity  we  find  here,  which  pervades 
-all  this  author  has  said  about  the  will,  which  is,  that 
after  the  will,  whatever  it  may  be,  has  done  its  duty 
some  other  power  takes  up  the  unfinished  business 
of  the  will,  and  finishes  it.  The  knowledge  of  the 
Deity,  so  far  as  we  can  have  any  conceptions  of  it,  is 
intuitive,  and  excludes  the  idea  of  choice  :  at  least  in 
this  sense,  God  can  never  compare  two  objects  to- 
gether for  the  purpose  of  deciding  which  of  them  is  . 
preferable  to  the  other.     I  therefore  suggest  this  idea, 


that  intuitive  knowledge,  and  will  in  the  divine  mind, 
are  but  a  single  mode  of  thinking.  With  respect 
to  ourselves,  we  unquestionably  discover  three  modes 
of  thinking.  First,  wc  perceive  thousands  of  sensi- 
ble objects,  and  know  that  we  perceive  them,  yet 
they  are  not  objects  of  choice.  Second,  moral  in- 
ducements are  exhibited  to  the  mind,  on  which  it 
deliberates  before  the  objects  thus  exhibited  are  cho- 
sen. Thiidly,  the  mind  perceives  and  knows  when 
it  has  made  choice  of  an  object ;  the  consequence  of 
which  is,  a  steady  mode  of  thinking  to  acquire  the 
object  or  objects  chosen.  But  it  is  utterly  impossible 
that  these  tliree  modes  of  thinking  can  have  any  place 
in  the  divine  mind,  or  rather  in  the  source  and  fountain 
^f  all  intelligence. 


PART  II. 

SECTION    I, 

"  Showing  the  manifest  inconsistence  of  the  Armini^ 
an  notion  of  the  liberty  of  the  willy  consisting  in  the 
will's  self  detenu  ining  power » * ' 

THE  author  observes  that  he  has  taken  notice  of 
those  things,  which  may  be  necessary  to  be  observed, 
concerning  the  meaning  of  the  principal  terms  and 
phrases  made  use  of  in  controversies  concerning  hu- 
man liberty,  and  has  particularly  observed  what 
liberty  is,  according  to  the  common  language,  an^ 

2  N 


274 

general  apprehension  of  mankind  ;  and  what  it  is,  as 
understood  by  Arminians  ;  and  that  he  now  proceeds 
to  consider  the  Arminian  notion  oi  the  Jreedom  of  the 
will,  a^id  the  supposed  necessity  of  it,  in  order  to  mo- 
ral agency,  or  in  order  to  any  one^s  being  capable  of 
virtue  and  vice';  or  whether  that  which  has  been  de- 
scribed, as  the  thing  meant  by  liberty  in  common 
speech,  be  not  sufficient,  and  the  only  liberty  which 
makes,  or  can  make,  any  one  a  moral  agent. 

"  First  of  all,  I  shall  consider  the  notion  of  a  self- 
determining  power  in  the  will ;  wherein,  according  to 
the  Arminians,  does  most  essentially  consist  the 
will's  freedom :  and  shall  particularly  inquire,  whe- 
ther it  be  not  plainly  absurd,  and  a  manifest  inconsis- 
tency, to  suppose  that  the  will  itself  determines  all 
the  free  acts  of  the  will." 

"  Here  I  shall  not  insist  on  the  great  impropriety 
of  such  phrases,  and  ways  of  speaking,  as  the  wiWs 
determining  itself;  because  actions  are  to  be  ascrib- 
ed to  agents,  and  not  properly  to  the  powers  of 
agents ;  which  improper  way  of  speaking,  leads  to 
many  mistakes  and  much  confusion,  as  Mr.  Locke 
observes.'* 

These  ideas  are  borrowed  from  Locke,  on  which 
I  have  already  made  such  strictures  as  show  their 
futility:  viz.  that  if  an  agent  be  made  up  of  any 
thing,  it  must  be  power,  and  the  very  essence  of  that 
power  must  be  thinking  ;  and  therefore,  to  say  that 
actions  are  to  be  ascribed  to  agents,  and  not  to  the 
power  of  agents,  is  incomprehensible  and  irrational. 
The  author  has  not  coudescended  to  tell  us,  what  is  the 


275 

essential  distinotion  between  the  agent,  and  the  pow- 
er of  the  agent :  and  until  we  are  intelligibly  in- 
formed wherein  this  grand  secret  lies,  we  shall  not 
hesitate  to  say,  that  there  is  in  fact  no  such  secret 
thing. 

"  But  I  shall  suppose,  that  the  Arminians,  when 
they  speak  of  the  wilVs  determining  itself^  do  by 
the  7tv7/,  mean  the  soul  willing.  I  shall  take  it  for 
granted,  that  when  they  speak  of  the  will,  as  die  de- 
terminer, they  mean  the  soul,  in  the  exercise  of  a 
power  of  willing,  or  acting  voluntarily.  I  shall  sup- 
pose this  to  be  their  meaning,  because  nothing  else 
can  be  meant,  without  the  grossest  and  plainest  ab- 
surdity." 

I  have  never  read  any  professed  systematic  Ar- 
minian  author ;  but  I  presume  this  author  had  read 
all  noted  Arminian  authors  from  Arminius  down  to 
his  own  time.  Whether  Locke  were  an  Arminian, 
I  know  not :  he  did  not  think  Calvin's  and  Turre- 
tine's  works  contained  a  rational  system  of  moral 
agency.  Now,  Locke  supposed  the  same  diing  that 
this  author  supposed ;  and  the  same  thing  that  this 
author  says  the  Arminians  must  suppose,  that  is,  by 
the  will^  they  mean  the  soul  willing.  But  Locke 
and  this  author,  taking  it  for  granted,  that  by  the  will 
is  meant  the  soul  willing^  infer  that  the  will  is  not 
free.  The  Arminians,  if  the  author  is  correct,  from 
the  same  premises  make  a  different  inference,  viz. 
the  will  is  free.  It  is  evident  that  Locke  and  tiiis 
author,  did  not  consider  the  will  to  be  a  power  ;  that 
is,  the  term  wi//,  was  not  a  sign  for  power  in  the  will^ 


^6 

but  for  power  in  the  soul ;  consequently  the  infer 
ence  should  be,  the  soul  is  not  free  in  willing ;   and 
hot,  the  will  is  not  free :  because  the  will  means  the 
soul  willing. 

"  In  all  cases,  when  we  speak  of  the  powers  or 
principles  of  acting,  or  doing  such  things,  we  mean 
that  the  agents  which  have  those  powers  of  acting, 
do  them  in  the  exercise  of  those  powers :  so  when 
we  say,  valour  fights  courageously,  we  mean  the 
man  who  is  under  the  influence  of  valour,  fights  cou- 
rageously." 

Here  we  have  again  represented  to  us  an  impos- 
sible ca;se,  viz.  an  agent,  as  something  distinct  from 
the  powers  the  agent  possesses.  To  say  that  valour 
fights  courageously,  is  personifying  valour,  and  is  no 
illustration  of  the  author's  assertion.  The  man  that 
has  power  and  no  fear,  may  fight  courageously.  In 
'grave,  didactic  writings,  figurative  language  should 
be  avoided  as  much  as  possible.  If  we  keep  to  the 
analogy,  the  agent  and  valour,  are  both  personifica- 
tions. When  we  personify  love,  and  say  that  love 
seeks  the  object  loved,  we  may  be  understood,  and 
every  one  may  be  sensible,  that  we  do  not  mean  that 
love  is  a  person. 

"  So  when  we  say,  the  understanding  discerns,  we 
mean  the  soul  in  the  exercise  of  that  faculty."  Now, 
I  pray  to  know  what  can  be  meant  by  these  words, 
"  the  soul  in  the  exercise  of  the  faculty  of  under- 
standing, discerns."  For  if  the  understanding  be  a 
faculty  or  power,  and  the  soul  be  another  power, 
this  is  making  one  power  the  property  of  anothej' 


277 

power,  ^\  hich  the  author  censures  for  its  manifest  ab- 
surdity. But  the  sentence  conveys  this  idea.  The 
temi  understanding'  does  not  signify  a  distinct  pow- 
er in  the  soul ;  but  the  soul  in  the  exercise  of  pow- 
er :  and  wliat  precise  ideas  may  be  annexed  to  these 
words,  I  am  not  able  to  perceive.  The  soul,  as  un- 
intelligible as  the  terms  will  and  understanding y  is 
made  tlie  grand  substratum,  the  universal  reservoir 
of  all  active  po\\er  ;  but  yet  it  is  not  power  that  is  ac- 
tive, but  the  soul ;  and  what  the  soul  may  be  without 
power,  we  are  not  informed. 

"  So  when  it  is  said,  the  will  decides  or  determines, 
the  meaning  must  be,  that  the  person  in  the  exercise 
of  a  power  of  willing  and  choosing,  or  the  soul  acting 
voluntarily  determines." 

Here  it  is  acknowledged  that  something  decides- 
^nd  determines,   and  what  is  the  great,  difference^ 
whether  we  call  that  something,  will,  mind,  soul, 
agent,  or  person  ?    The  author  says,  that  it  is  not  the 
will  that  decides  and  determines  :     and  yet  he  says, 
that  the  will  means  the  mind,  the  soul,  the  agent,  or 
the  person,  in  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  willing 
and  choosing.     Now,  if  all  these  terms  be  synony- 
mous, and  the  will  stands  as  a  sign  for  all  and  any 
of  them,  how  can  this  author  say,  that  it  is  not  the 
will  that  decides  and  determines?     The  term  xvill 
is  unquestionably  a  word  that  is  a  sign  for  some  idea 
in  the  mind ;  and  the  author  says,  that  it  must  be  a 
sign  for  the  same  idea  in  the  minds  of  Arminians,  as 
it  is  in  his  own  mind.     And  wherever  there  are  the 


278 

same  clear  and  distinct  ideas,  difFerent  consequences 
are  never  drawn  from  them. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  author's  grand  infer- 
ence made  from  what  he  has  said,  which  embraces 
a  great  variety  of  inferences  ;  and  before  we  enter  up- 
on it,  we  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting  three  di- 
stinctly difFerent  ideas,  that  seem  to  have  been  given 
to  the  term  will. 

First,  it  is  so  defined  as  to  mean  the  mind,  a  real 
existence  in  action.  This,  says  the  author  is,  the  true 
meaning  of  the  term  will :  and  this  he  says  must  be 
the  meaning  of  it  in  the  minds  of  Arminians. 

Second,  some  may  suppose  that  it  is  really  an  ex- 
isting power  that  chooses,  and  with  sovereign  au- 
thority, directs  the  various  actions  of  the  mind,  and 
motions  of  the  body. 

Third,  it  seems  sometimes  to  be  taken  for  a  pow- 
er to  act,  affeer  the  actual  existence  of  choice.  Thus 
this  author  says,  he  is  free,  who  can  do  as  he  wills,  or 
we  cannot  conceive  of  a  person's  being  more  free, 
than  to  be  able  to  do  as  he  wills. 

In  an  argument  the  same  ideas  ought  constantly  to 
accompany  the  same  term ;  otherwise  it  will  amount 
to  nothing. 

"  Therefore,  if  the  will  determines  all  its  own  free 
acts,  the  soul  determines  all  the  free  acts  of  the  will, 
in  the  exercise  of  a  power  of  willing  or  choosing ;  or 
which  is  the  same  thing,  it  determines  them  of  choice, 
it  determines  its  own  acts  by  choosing  its  own  acts. 
If  the  will  determines  the  will,  then  choice  orders 
and  determines  choice." 


279 

The  absurdity  of  this  hypothetical  syllop;ism,  wc 
doubt  not  will  be  manifest  after  a  little  reflection  : 
and  if  the  argument  in  the  beginning  be  incorrect, 
tlie  many  subsequent  arguments  that  are  founded 
upon  it,  must  be  incorrect  also. 

We  have  only  to  ask,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the 
term  will  in  the  hypothesis,  "  if  the  ivill  determines 
all  its  o\ni  free  acts  ?"  If  the  term  rvill,  here,  mean 
the  soul  in  the  act  of  choosing,  then  the  inference 
ought  to  be,  the  soul,  in  the  exercise  of  a  power  of 
%villing  or  choosing,  determines  all  the  free  acts  of 
the  soul ;  that  is,  the  soul  in  action  determines  the 
soul  before  it  is  in  action.  The  absurdity  consists  in 
this,  the  term  will,  in  the  hypothesis,  is  equivocal. 
If  it  mean  the  soul  in  the  act  of  choosing,  then  we 
should  have  this  unmeaning  syllogism.  If  the  soul 
in  the  act  of  choosing  determines  all  its  own  free 
acts,  then  the  soul,  in  the  exercise  of  a  power  of 
willing  or  choosing,  determines  all  the  free  acts  of  the 
soul  in  the  exercise  of  a  power  of  willing  or  choosing; 
that  is,  determines  its  own  acts  by  choosing  its  own 
acts ;  that  is,  after  the  mind  begins  to  choose,  it 
chooses  to  begin  to  choose  some  other  thing.  Some- 
times by  free  acts,  this  author  means  such  acts  or 
actions  as  take  place  subsequent  to  choice,  and  there- 
fore he  must  suppose,  that  another  power  steps  in 
and  executes  what  remains  to  be  done  after  the 
choice  is  made ;  and  in  this  sense  the  freedom  of  the 
will  does  not  come  into  view  at  all. 

"  If  the  will  determines  the  will,  then  choice  orders 
and  determines  choice."      This  absurd  consequence 


280 

will  not  follow,  unless  it  be  said  without  reason,  that 
will  and  choice  ar^  synonymous  terms  ;  unless  the 
soul  and  an  action  of  the  soul  are  precisely  one  and 
the  same  thing.  The  term  choice,  undoubtedly  must 
stand  for  a  particular  act  of  the  mind.  The  purport 
of  the  syllogism  is,  if  the  mind  by  the  will  choosing, 
determines  the  mind  by  the  will  choosing  ;  then  an 
act  of  the  mind  choosing,  determines  an  act  of  the 
mind  choosing.  The  inference  here  directly  contra- 
dicts the  hypothesis,  for  that  supposes  one  thing,  and 
the  inference  supposes  another. 

^*  And  therefore,  if  the  will  determines  all  its  own 
free  acts,  then  every  free  act  of  choice  is  determined 
by  a  preceding  act  of  choice  choosing  that  act.  And 
if  that  preceding  act  of  the  will  or  choice,  be  also  a 
free  act,  then  by  these  principles,  in  the  act  too,  the 
will  is  self-determined ;  that  is,  this  in  like  manner  is 
an  act  that  the  soul  voluntarily  chooses  ;  or  which  is 
the  same  thing,  it  is  an  act  determined  still  by  a  pre- 
ceding act  of  the  will  choosing  that.  And  the  like 
may  be  said  again  of  the  last  mentioned  act,  which 
brings  us  directly  to  a  contradiction  ;  for  it  supposes 
an  act  of  the  will  preceding  the  first  act  in  the  whole 
train,  directing  and  determining  the  rest ;  or  a  free 
act  of  the  will,  before  the  first  free  act  of  the 
will.  Or  else  we  must  come  eX  last  to  an  act  of  the 
will,  determining  the  consequent  acts  wherein  the  will 
is  not  self-determined  ;  and  so  is  not  a  free  act  in 
this  notion  of  freedom  :  but  if  the  first  act  in  the  train, 
determining  and  fixing  the  rest,  be  not  free,  none  of 


:^81 

them  all  can  be  free,  as  is  manifest  at  first  view  ;  bul 
shall  be  demonstrated  presentl3\" 

When  it  is  said  that  the  Mill  has  a  self-determining' 
power,  the  term  willy  is  made  a  sign  of  a  real  existing 
power  in  the  soul :  and  all  that  can  be  meant  by  self- 
determining  power y  is  that  the  power  can  of  itself  act 
Avitliout  the  assistance  of  any  other  power  :  a  power 
that  cannot  act,  is  no  power.  If  the  will  be  a  power, 
or  if  it  be  a  sign  for  power  in  the  soul,  nothing  hith- 
erto said  by  the  author  militates  in  the  least  against 
its  freedom.  The  design  of  the  author  is  to  prove 
that  the  will  is  riot  free,  and  to  convict  his  opponents 
of  absurdity  :  and  his  first  assumption  takes  for  grant- 
ed a  thing  which  he  has  not  proved,  and  which  can^ 
not  be  proved  :  viz.  that  the  will,  or  soul  in  choosing, 
does  not  act  of  itself,  but  some  other  power  sets  it  in 
motion.  And  to  give  a  semblance  of  probability  to  the 
argument,  acts  of  the  mind  are  personified,  and  made 
to  stand  for  real  beings  or  powers  in  the  soul.  Thus, 
if  the  soul  in  choosing  performs  an  action,  that  action 
becomes  a  power,  and  performs  another  action. 

The  author  has  given  three  distinctly  different  ideas 
of  the  term  will.  First — The  will  is  that  by  which 
the  mind  chooses.  This  makes  the  will  to  be  some- 
thing, but  what,  nobody  can  tell. 

Secondly — The  will  always  is  as  the  greatest  ap^ 
parent  good  is.  This  places  the  will  after  an  act  of  vo- 
lition :  for  there  is  no  difference  between  the  percep- 
tion of,  and  the  choosing  the  greatest  apparent  good. 

The  third  sense  is,  the  soul  willing  or  choosing. 
2  0 


282 

And  if  the  ■ti)ill  be  the  sign  for  this,  it  is  u  siga  for  a 
real  existing  power  in  action,  that  implies  perception 
and  thinking.  It  would  sound  strangely,  to  say,  if 
that  by  which  the  eye  sees,  determines  that  by  which 
the  eye  sees^  then  sight  orders  and  determines  sight ; 
yet  it  is  as  good  logic  as  what  follows :  if  that  by 
which  the  mind  chooses  determines  that  by  which  the 
mind  choosesy  then  choice  orders  and  determines 
choice. 

"  If  the  will,  which  we  find  governs  the  members 
of  the  body,  and  determines  and  commands  their  mo- 
tions  and  actions,  does  also  govern  itself^  and  deter- 
mine its  own  motions  and  actions,  it  doubtless  deter- 
mines them  the  same  way,  even  by  antecedent  voli- 
tions." 

Considering  the  various  definitions,  that  the  au- 
thor has  given  of  the  term  will^  some  of  which  make 
it  a  mere  cypher  in  moral  agency,  we  could  not  have 
thought  that  he  would  have  asserted  that  the  will 
governs  any  thing.  When  this  author,  or  any  other 
in  his  stead,  has  told  us  v/hat  we  arc  to  understand  by 
the  will's  governing  tlic  members  of  the  body,  and 
determining  and  commanding  their  motions  and  ac- 
tions, we  shall  know  what  to  say  to  it.  In  one  place 
he  says,  that  choosing  is  doing,  and  that  nothing; 
more  remains  to  be  done.  In  other  places,  he  clearly 
holds  up  the  idea  that  somethingremains  to  be  done  af- 
ter volition.  It  is  evident  that  the  term  will  is  used 
here  for  mind,  soul,  and  v/hatevcr  may,  or  can  enter 
into  our  ideas  as  to  a  moral  being.  The  argument 
therefore  is  tliis  :  '^  If  the  moral  being,  who  governs 


ihc  members  of  his  oAvn  body,  and  dc(.ermmes  and 
commands  the  motions  and  actions  thereof,  does  also 
govern  himself,  and  determine  his  own  motions  and 
actions,    he  doubtless  determines    them  the  same 
way."     We  leave  out  the  words  ''  eveti  by  antecedent 
voiitionsy^  because  volitions  are  not  the  sole  acts  of  a 
moral  agent.      We  have  here  the  motions  and  actions 
of  the  mind,  and  the  motions  and  actions  of  the  body, 
which  last  are  visible  :  but  what  may  be  the  motions 
and  actions  of  the  mind,  I  readily  confess,  I  do  not 
know.     If  volition  be  the  very  essence  of  moral  agen- 
cy, what  are  its  motions  and  actions  ?  Perception  is 
unquestionably   the  very  essence  of  volition  :  but 
what  sort  of  motions  and  actions,  or  whether  any,  ac- 
company or  precede  perception,  we  know  not ;  it  is 
an  original  principle.   And  to  talk  of  actions  and  mo- 
tions^ as  preceding  perception,  is  an  evidence  that  we 
talk  of  matters,  about  which  we  have  no  ideas.     Ex- 
ternal actions  are  ihe  best  evidence  that  we  can  have 
of  the  will  of  a  moral  being — but  volitions  are  not  al- 
ways manifested  by  external  actions.     And  the  most 
criminal  intentions  may  exist  in  the  mind,  such  as 
render  the  person  extremely  culpable,  and  subject  him 
to  punishment,  yet  may  never  be  exhibited  by  exter- 
nal actions. 

Locke  says,  and  none  dare  to  deny  it,  that  where 
there  is  not  the  power  of  thinking,  there  can  be  no 
will.  Thinking  then  must  be  the  very  essence  of  the 
will ;  but  of  the  power  of  thinking,  the  most  distin- 
guished gift  of  heaven,  that  which  distinguishes  man 
from  the  fowl  of  heaven,  and  the  beast  of  the  field., 


284. 

nothing  Is  said.  By  the  term  thinking,  I  meah  three 
distinct  modes  of  thinking;  which,  I  think,  everyone 
upon  reflection  must  find  in  himself.  As  this  author 
lias  grounded  himself  upon  Locke,  when  Locke  ac- 
knowledges that  he  was  doubtful  as  to  the  correct- 
ness of  his  ideas,  it  were  to  be  wished  that  he  had 
grounded  himself  on  that  author,  where  he  describes 
the  operations  of  his  own  mind,  with  great  perspicuity. 
We  will  now  put  thinkings  according  to  its  modi- 
fications, for  the  term  -will,  in  the  passage  quoted ;  and 
then  we  shall  have  the  following  argument.  "  If 
thinking,  which  we  find  governs  the  members  of  the 
body,  and  determines  and  commands  their  motions 
and  actions,  does  also  govern  itself,  and  determine 
its  own  motions  and  actions,  it  doubtless  determines 
them  the  same  way,  even  by  antecedent  thinking  ;" 
that  is,  the  moral  being  thinks,  before  he  thinks, 
which  is  an  impossible  thing. 

"  The  will  determines  which  way  the  hands  and 
feet  shall  move,  by  an  act  of  volitibft  or  choice  ;  and 
there  is  no  other  way  of  the  will's  determining,  or 
commanding  any  thing  at  all." 

Here  the  will  is  unquestionably  put  for  all  that  con- 
stitutes a  moral  being  :  and  yet,  according  to  the  au- 
thor, there  is  no  variety  in  the  will;  for  he  says,  it 
always  is  as  the  greatest  apparent  good  is.  But  as 
to  thinking,  there  are  modifications,  if  we  may  believe 
Locke.  We  will  now  adopt  this  argument,  and  sub- 
stitute thinking,  where  lie  uses  the  term  will  and  vo- 
lition. 

^^  Whatsoever  thinking  communds,  it  commands  by 


285 

an  act  of  thinkiiij^ ;  and  if  it  has  itself  under  its  com- 
mand and  determines  its  own  actions,  it  doubtless 
does  it  in  the  same  way  that  it  determines  other 
thinj^  which  are  under  its  command  ;  so  that  if  tht 
freedom  of  thinking  consists  in  this,  that  it  has  itscll 
and  its  own  actions  under  its  command  and  direc- 
tion, and  its  own  thoughts  are  deteiTnined  by  itself, 
it  will  follow,  that  every  free  thought  arises  from  an- 
other antecedent  free  thought,  directing  and  command- 
ing that ;  and  if  that  directing  thought  be  also  free, 
in  that  also  thinking  is  determined  :  that  is  to  say, 
that  directing  thought  is  determined  by  another  go- 
ing before  that,  and  so  on,  till  we  come  to  the  first 
thought  in  the  whole  series  ;  and  if  that  first  thought 
be  free,  and  thinking  be  self-determined  in  it,  then 
that  is  preceded  and  determined  by  another  thought, 
which  is  a  contradiction :  because,  by  tlie  supposi- 
tion, it  can  have  none  before  it  to  direct  or  deter- 
mine it,  it  being  the  first  in  the  train." 

"  But  if  that  fir^t  thought  is  not  determined  by 
any  preceding  act  of  thinking,  then  that  act  is  not 
determined  by  thinking,  and  so  is  not  free  in  the  Ar- 
minian  notion  of  freedom,  which  consists  in  think- 
ing'-s  self-determination.  And  if  that  first  act  of 
thinking  which  determines  and  fixes  the  subsequent 
acts  be  not  free,  none  of  the  following  acts  which  arc 
determined  by  it  are  free. 

"  If  we  suppose  that  there  are  five  acts  in  the 
train,  the  fifth  and  last  determined  by  the  fourth, 
nnd  the  fourth  by  the  third,  the  third  by  the  second, 
and  the  second  by  tlie  first :  if  the  first  be  not  deter- 


286 

iiiined  by  thinking,  and  so  not  free,  then  none  of 
them  are  truly  determined  by  thinking ;  that  is,  that 
each  of  them  are  as  they  are,  and  not  otherwise,  is 
not  first  owing  to  thinking,  but  to  the  determination 
of  the  first  in  the  series,  which  is  not  dependent  on 
thinking,  and  is  that  which  thinking  has  no  hand  in 
the  determination  of;  and  this  being  that  which  de- 
cides what  the  rest  shall  be,  and  determines  their 
existence,  therefore  the  first  determination  of  their 
existence  is  not  from  thinking.      The  case  is  just 
the  same,  if,  instead  of  a  chain  of  five  acts  of  think- 
ing, we  should  suppose  a  succession  of  ten,  or  a 
Imndred,  or  ten  thousand.     If  the  first  act  be  not  free, 
being  determined  by  something  out  of  thinking,  and 
this  determines  the  next  to  be  agreeable  to  itself,  and 
that  the  next,  and  so  on,  they  are  none  of  them  free, 
but  all  of  them  originally  depend  on,  and  are  de^ 
termined  by  'some  cause  out  of  thinking :    and  so 
ail  freedom  in  the  case  is  excluded,  and  no  act  of 
tliinkiiig  can  be  free  according  to  this  notion  of  free- 
dom.    If  we  should  suppose  a  chain  of  ten  thousand 
links,  so  connected  that  if  the  first  link  moves  it  will 
move  the  next,  and  that  the  next,  and  so  the  whole 
chain  must  be  determined  to  motion,  and  in  the  di- 
rection of  its  motion,  by  the  motion  of  the  first  link  ; 
and  that  is  moved  by  something  else :  in  this  case, 
though  all  the  links  but   one  are  moved  by  other 
parts  of  the  same  chain,  yet  it  appears  that  the  mo- 
tion of  no  one,  nor  the  direction  of  its  motion,  is  from 
any  self-moving  or    self- determining  power  in  the 
chain,  any  more  than  if  every  link  \^  ere  immediate!}' 


287 

moved  by  something  that  did  not  belong  to  tlie  chaJu. 
If  thinking  be  not  free  in  the  first  act,  which  causes 
the  next,  then  neither  is  it  free  in  the  next,  which  is 
caused  by  that  first  act.  For  though  indeed  thinking 
caused  it,  yet  it  did  not  cause  it  freely  :  because  the 
preceding  act  by  which  it  was  caused,  was  not  free. 
And  again,  if  thinking  be  not  free  in  the  second  act, 
so  neither  can  it  be  in  the  third,  which  is  caused  by 
that ;  because  in  like  manner,  that  third  was  deter- 
mined by  an  act  of  thinking  that  was  not  free :  so 
we  may  go  on  to  the  next  act,  and  from  that  to  the 
next :  and  how  long  soever  the  succession  of  acts  is, 
it  is  all  one.  If  the  first,  on  which  the  whole  chain 
depends,  and  which  determines  all  the  rest,  be  not  a 
free  act,  thinking  is  not  free  in  causing  or  determin- 
ing any  of  these  acts ;  because  the  act  by  which  it 
determine?  them  all,  is  not  a  free  act :  and  therefore, 
thinking  is  no  more  free  in  determining  them,  than 
if  it  did  not  cause  tliem  at  all.  Thus  this  Arminian 
notion  of  liberty,  of  thinking  consisting  in  thinking's 
self-determination,  is  repugnant  to  itself,  and  shuts 
itself  wholly  out  of  the  world." 

This  is  the  author's  famous  demonstration  of  the 
total  want  of  freedom  in  the  will.  As  I  observed  be- 
fore, thinking  and  thought,  are  substituted  for  7vill 
and  volition. 

If  the  argument  be  not  a  tissue  of  absurd  assump- 
tion, I  confess  I  do  not  understand  it.  I  cannot 
think  that  spirit  and  matter  have  any  similarity,  nor 
that  a  chain  of  five,  or  five  millions  of  links,  has  any 
tking  to  do  with  this  question.  Is  an  intelligent  being 


288 

a  free  agent  ?  or,  is  thinking  essential  to  free  ag-en- 
cy? 

Notwithstanding  what  I  have  above  objected 
against  president  Edwards,  I  freely  acknowledge, 
that  his  reasoning  in  my  mind,  in  his  4th  part  and 
9th  section,  is  plain  and  intelligible.  A  specimen  we 
shall  only  give,  as  we  find  it  under  the  second  head. 

"  They  who  object  that  this  doctrine  makes  God 
the  author  of  sin,  ought  distinctly  to  explain  what 
they  mean  by  that  phrase,  the  author  of  sin,  I  know 
the  phrase,  as  it  is  commonly  used,  signifies  some- 
thing very  ill.  If,  by  the  author  of  sin,  be  meant  the 
sinner,  the  agent,  or  actor  of  sin,  or  doer  of  a  wicked 
thing ;  so  it  would  be  a  reproach  and  blasphemy  to 
suppose  God  to  be  the  author  of  sin.  In  this  sense,  I 
utterly  deny  God  to  be  the  author  of  sin ;  rejecting 
such  an  imputation  ontlic  Most  High,  as  what  is  infi- 
nitely to  be  abhorred ;  and  deny  such  thing  to  be 
the  consequence  of  what  I  have  laid  down.  But  if, 
by  the  author  of  sin,  is  meant  the  permitter,  or  not 
a  hinderer  of  sin ;  and  at  the  same  time,  a  disposer 
of  the  state  of  events,  in  such  manner,  for  wise,  ho* 
ly  and  most  excellent  ends  and  purposes,  that  sin, 
if  it  be  permitted  or  not  hindered,  will  most  -cer- 
tainly and  infallibly  follow :  I  say,  if  this  be  all  that 
is  meant  by  being  the  author  of  sin,  (though  I  dis- 
like and  reject  the  phrase,  as  that  which  by  use  and 
custom  is  apt  to  carry  another  sense,)  it  is  no  re- 
proach,  for  the  Most  High  to  be  thus  the  autlior  of 
sin.  This  is  not  to  be  the  actor  of  sin,  but  on  the 
opntnirv.  the  actor  of   holmess.      What  God  doth 


289 

herein  is  holy,  and  a  glorious  exercive  of  the  infinite 
excellency  of  his  nature  :  and  I  do  not  deny  that 
God's  being  thus  the  author  of  sin,  follows  from 
what  I  ha\e  laid  down ;  and  I  assert,  tliat  it  equally 
follows  from  the  doctrine  which  is  maintained  by 
most  of  the  Arminian  divines.''^ 

All  this  I  cheerfully  assent  to :  and  think  that  the 
autlior  h;is  ver}'  happily  conveyed  his  ideas  in  intel- 
ligible language,  because  he,  with  sufficient  preci- 
sion, makes  a  distinction  between  the  foreknowledge 
of  the  Deity  and  his  decree ;  and  allowing  that  such 
distinction  may  be  made,  and  that  Arminians  con- 
tend earnestly  for  it :  still  the  secret  councils  of  God 
are  a  great  and  inexplicable  mystery.  For  events 
not  depending  on  the  foreknowledge  of  the  Deity, 
but  certainly  foreknown  from  all  eternity,  must  be 
as  sure  and  certain,  as  if  they  depended  on  a  positive 
decree.  Tlie  idea  that  the  greatest^  or  a  great  por- 
tion of  mankind,  will  suffer  the  eternal  torments  of 
the  fire  of  hell,  makes  the  distinction  between  the 
foreknowledge  and  the  decree  of  the  Deity,  of  very 
little  consequence  :  indeed  of  no  consequence  at  all. 
Man  surely  does  not  exist  by  the  foreknowledge  of 
the  Deity  ;  and  if  he  exist  in  an  actual  state  of  tor- 
ments to  all  eternity,  he  will  so  exist,  otherwise 
than  by  the  foreknowledge  of  the  Deity ;  tliat.is,  by 
a  positive  decree. 

In  Part  II.  Section  2,  the  author  considers  several 
supposed  ways  of  evading  his  reasoning.  *'  If  it 
should  be  said,  when  the  Arminians  apeak  of  the  will's 
determining  its  own  acts,  they  do  not  mean  that  the 

2  p 


290 

will  detcniiincs  its  acts,  by  any  preceeding  act,  or 
that  one  act  of  the  will  determines  another ;  but  only 
that  the  faculty  or  power  of  will,  or  the  soul  in  the 
use  of  that  power,  determines  its  own  volitions :  and 
that  it  does  it  without  any  act  going  before  the  act 
determined.  Such  an  evasion  would  be  full  of  the 
most  gross  absurdity.  I  confess  it  is  an  evasion  of 
my  own  inventing  ;  and  I  do  not  know  but  I  should 
wrong  the  Arminians,  in  supposing  that  any  of  them 
irould  make  use  of  it.  But  it  being  as  good  a  one 
as  I  can  invent,  I  would  observe  upon  it  a  few  things. 
First,  if  the  faculty  or  power  of  the  will,  determine 
an  act  of  volition,  or  the  soul  in  the  use  or  exercise  of 
that  power,  determines  it,  that  is  the  same  thing  as 
for  the  soul  to  determine  volition  by  an  act  of  the  will. 
For  an  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  will,  and  an  act  of 
that  power,  are  the  same  thing.  Therefore^  to  say  that 
the  power  of  Tt'z//,  or  the  soul  mthe  exercise  o{t\\2it  pow- 
er, determines  volition,  without  an  act  preceding  the 
volition  determined,  is  a  contradiction." 

We  will  advert  to  none  of  the  other  reasons  given 
to  invalidate  a  supposed  absurd  hypothesis.  We 
observe  here  that  we  do  not  perceive  any  connexion 
between  the  hypothesis  and  the  consequence  :  for 
the  same  thing  is  twice  asserted,  though  not  precise- 
ly in  the  same  words.  Upon  the  supposition  that  vo- 
lition is  an  act  of  the  will,  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that 
volition  acts;  and  the  Avords  "  determines  an  act  ofvo- 
iitioriy''  seem  to  have  this  meaning :  in  the  conse- 
quence we  find  the  words  "  determines  volition*^  in- 
"Stnd  of  "  ^Jet^rr^'Tip^  av  nr^  of  volition. ''^ 


291 

If  it  were  granted,  tliat  the  sole  office  of  the  will  is 
to  choose^  it  \vould  be  absurd  to  say  that  choice  is 
not  the  sole  act  of  the  will :  and  that  there  must  be 
an  act  of  tlie  will  previous  to  an  act  of  volition, 
which  determines  volition  :  that  is,  to  arrive  at  an  act 
of  volition,  the  will  performs  a  previous  act  that  is 
not  volition.  The  hypothesis  fabricated  for  the 
Arminian^  asserts  that  there  is  no  previous  act  of  the 
will.  The  author  assumes,  he  does  not  prove,  that 
there  must  be  a  previous  act.  And  tliis  assumption 
of  the  author  is  as  absurd  as  the  hypothesis  he  has 
framed  for  the  Arminian^  and  much  more  palpably 
so ;  for  if  the  will  be  a  power,  as  the  author  ever}'- 
where  supposes,  and  its  sole  office  be  to  choose,  it  is 
a  contradiction  to  say  that  it  performs  any  other  act 
than  that  of  choosing :  and  this  kind  of  contradiction 
is  triumphantly  made  use  of  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  the  author's  inquiry.  The  author's  fa- 
bricated Arminian  hypothesis  is,  **  the  power  of  ivill 
determines  its  own  volitions  without  any  act  going  be- 
fore the  act  determined.*'  This  he  says  is  absurd : 
and  if  so,  he  ought  to  have  demonstrated  the  follow- 
ing proposition,  which  he  has  not  done — "  The  power 
of  will  determines  volition  by  a?i  act  going  before  the 
act  determined.*'' 

The  author  has  said,  that  "  the  will  is,  as  the  great- 
est apparent  good  is.'^  In  other  words,  according 
as  the  mind  perceives  goodness  in  the  object  it  con- 
templates, so  is  the  will.  It  is  apparent,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  author's  manner  of  reasoning,  he  consi- 
ders objects  in  the  view  of  the  mind,  as  real  powers 


29^ 

^r  beings  ;  otherwise  he  could  nol  find  out  s6  manj 
acts,  and  determination  of  acts.     He  says,  the  ques- 
tion is  "  what  influences,  directs,  or  determines  the 
mind  or  will,  to  come  to  such  a  conclusion  or  choice 
as  it  does  ?     Or  what  is  the  cause,  ground,  or  reason 
why  it  concludes  thus,  and  not  otherwise  ?     Now,  it 
must  be  answered  according  to  the  Arminian  notion 
of  freedom,  that  the  will  influences,  orders  and  deter- 
mines itself  thus  to  act ;  and  if  it  does,  I  say  it  must 
be  by  some  antecedent  act.     To  say  it  is  caused, 
influenced,  and  determined  by  something,  and  yet 
not  determined,  by  any  thing  antecedent  either  in  or- 
der of  time,  or  nature,  is  a  contradiction.     For  that  is 
what  is  meant  by  a  thing's  being  prior  in  order  of  na- 
ture, that  it  issome  way  the  cause  or  reason  of  the  thing, 
with  respect  to  which  it  is  said  to  be  prior."     On 
this  very  prior  thing,  if  I  understand  the  author,  he 
establishes  his  system  of  necessity. 

We  observe  here,  that  an  object  in  the  vicw  of  the 
mind  is  tlie  only  prior  thing  in  the  order  of  time  or 
nature  which  influences  the  ^vill,  the  mind,  the  soul, 
the  man,  the  agent,  to  come  to  such  or  such  a 
choice.  Therefore,  it  is  not  correct  to  say,  that  ac- 
cording to  the  Arminian  notion  of  freedom,  it  must 
be  answered,  "  that  the  will  influences,  orckrs,  and 
determines  itself  thus  to  act ;"  for  the  author  does, 
and  so  must  every  one,  acknowledge,  that  there  are 
external  objects  that  are  not  real  existing  powers 
and  beings,  that  influence  the  mind  to  choose  :  they 
are  the  sine  qua  non  of  choice ;  but  such  is  not,  or 
was  not  the  case  with  the  Deity  before  creation. — 


293 

"  Jf  the  will  does  thus  injiuence  itself,  sa5's  the  au- 
thor, I  say  it  must  be  by  some  antecedent  acty  But 
we  say,  it  does  not  thus  infiuence  itself,  therefore  it  is 
not  by  some  antecedent  act. 

The  author  asserts  very  positively,  that  all  God's 
ht)ly  actions  are  in  the  highest  possible  degree  neces- 
sary :  and  that  therefore  necessity  is  not  inconsistent 
Avith  morally  good  or  bad  qualities  in  the  actions  ol- 
men.  But  the  term  necessary,  as  applied  to  the  ac- 
tions of  the  Deity,  is  entirely  destitute  of  meaning. 
Previously  to  creation,  (and  we  presume  that  it  will 
be  gi-anted,  that  there  had  been  an  eternity  before 
creation,)  God  was  the  same  /  am  that  he  now  is. 
What  were  then  his  actions  ?  There  were  no  objects 
external  of  God :  he  could  not  then  have  any  voli- 
tions in  the  sense  we  use  the  term  :  he  was  possessed 
in  an  infinite  degree  of  intuitive  knowledge,  and  o! 
that  mode  of  thinking  which  I  call  wUl.  There  could 
be  no  antecedent  and  consequent  in  the  Deity  :  and 
we  cannot  possibly  frame  any  idea  of  any  connexion, 
of  any  things  in  him  by  way  of  antecedent  and  con- 
sequent. 

This  being  one  of  the  author's   strongest  argu- 
ments to  establish  the  fact,  that  actions  may  be  ne 
cessarily  good  and  deserve  praise,  or  necessarily  bad 
and  deserve  punishment,  I  do  humbly  conceive  a! 
present  that  it  does  not  e^tiiblish  tlw  fact  at  all. 


TO    THE 


REV.  AMZI  ARMSTRONG, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  MENDHAST, 


STATE    OF  NEW-JF.nSEY. 


REV.  AND  DEAR  SHJ, 

I  RECEIVED  your  favour  of  the  1st  Nov.  1810, 
\\  ith  the  manuscript  enclosed.  If  the  perusal  of  it 
afforded  you  any  pleasure,  I  am  fully  compensated. 
The  passage  in  Herodotus  is  the  only  one  in  profane 
history  that  I  have  found,  that  affords  any  data  for 
computing  the  age  of  the  post  deluvian  world.  It 
■would  certainly  confirm  the  Samaritan  and  Septua- 
gint  copies  of  the  Bible,  instead  of  the  Masorete  which 
we  adhere  to,  if  we  were  sure  that  those  copies  did 
not  begin  their  chronology  with  the  birth  of  Noath, 
which  was  600  years  before  the  flood  :  the  difference 
l^etween  the  two  first  and  the  last  is  precisely  600 
years :  the  Masorete  copies  giving  us  exactly  600 
years  less  than  the  others.  I  will  make  no  apology 
for  addressing  tlie  following  thoughts  to  you,  because 
I  know  your  candour.  I  do  not  offer  them  to  you  as 
lieing  entirely  correct :  I  wish  them  to  be  consider- 


JUjlUAfU 


u^u^ 


296 

cd  as  propositionss,  propounded,  for  the  consideration 
of  those  who  take  pleasure  in  thinking  for  themselves, 
and  are  not  satisfied  with  taking  every  thing  for  grant- 
ed.    I  observe  then, 

If  any  one  should  ask  me,  what  is  that  which  pre- 
cisely distinguishes  a  Calvinist  from  an  Arminian  ? 
my  ansv\^er  would  be,  they  impose  upon  the  terms 
decrees  of  God,  different  meanings.  President  Ed- 
wards seems,  however,  to  make  it  consist  in  the  dif- 
ferent ideas  affixed  to  the  term  will.  He  grants  that 
some  Cah  inists  advocate  some  Arminian  doctrines  : 
and  no  doubt  some  Arminians  hold  some  Calvinistic 
doctrines.  The  Calvinists  generally  hold  that  there 
is  no  principle  of  activity  in  the  human  mind  as  to 
religious  matters :  and  of  course,  that  Christ's  re- 
demptiop,  was  particular  and  not  universal.  The  Ar- 
minians iiold  that  there  is  a  principle  of  activity  in  the 
liiiriian  mind  :  anxl  of  coursjC,  that  Christ  died  for  all. 
The  principium  individuationis,  as  to  activity  and  no 
activitj'j  may  be  imperceptible  to  the  human  mind  ; 
and  it  is  so,  if  v»'e  may  believe  Doct.  Witlicrspoon,  a 
r^iound  Calvinist.  He  says,  vol.  1.  p.  132,  "  I  make 
no  scruple  to  acknowledge,  that  it  is  impossible  for 
nie,  nay,  I  find  no  difficulty  in  supposing,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  any  fi.nitc  rnind,  to  point  out  the 
bounds  between  the  '  dependence,^  and  the  '  activity 
of  the  creature.'  But  though  we  must  ever  remem- 
ber, that  it  is  he  alone,  who  can  bring  a  clean  thing 
out  of  an  unclean,  yet  we  know  also,  that  all  have 
sinned,  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.  We 
know  that  God  will  be  just  wlien  jie  speaketh,  and 


^^•..jhi^i 


297 

clear  when  he  jiid,^eth  ;  that  he  rejects  with  disdain, 
the  imputation  of  being  the  author  of  sin." 

President  Edwards,  in  his  Inquiry  into  the  Freedom 
of  the  Will,  says  in  the  preface,  "  I  would  here  give 
notice,  that  though  I  generally  speak  of  that  doctrine, 
concerning  free  will  and  moral  agency,  which  I  op. 
pose  as  an  Arminian  doctrine,  yet  I  would  not  be 
understood,  as  asserting  that  every  divine,  or  author, 
\vhom  I  have  occasion  to  mention  as  maintaining  that 
doctrine,  was  properly  an  Arminian,  or  one  of  that 
sort  which  is  commonly  called  by  that  name.  Som(t 
of  them  went  far  beyond  the  Arminians,  and  I  would 
by  no  means  charge  Arminians  in  general,  with  ali 
the  corrupt  doctrine  which  these  maintained.  Thu^ 
for  instance,  it  would  be  very  injurious  if  I  should 
rank  Arminian  divines  in  general,  with  such  authors 
as  Mr.  Chubb.  I  doubt  not  but  many  of  them  have 
some  of  his  doctrines  in  abhorrence :  though  he 
agrees  for  the  most  part  with  Arminians,  in  his  no- 
tions of  the  freedom  of  the  will.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  though  I  suppose  this  notion  to  be  a  leading 
article  in  the  Arminian  scheme  ;  tliat  which,  if  pursued 
in  its  consequences,  will  truly  infer,  or  naturally  lead 
to  all  the  rest ;  yet  I  do  not  charge  all  that  have  held 
this  doctrine  with  being  Arminians.  For  whatever 
may  be  the  consequences  of  the  doctrine  really,  yet 
some  that  hold  this  doctrine,  may  not  own  nor  see 
the  consequences.  I  desire  it  may  be  particularly 
noticed,  that  though  I  have  occasion,  in  the  following 
discourse,  often  to  mention  the  author  of  the  book, 

2  o 


298 

€Btitled,  c/^«  Essay  on  the  freedom  of  the  witi^  in  God 
and  the  creature^  as  holding  that  notion  of  the  free- 
dom of  the  will  which  I  oppose  ;  yet  I  do  not  mean 
to  call  him  an  Anninian.  However  in  that  doctrine- 
he  agrees  with  Arminians,  and  departs  from  the  cur- 
rent, and  general  opinion  of  Calvinists."  Thus  Ed- 
wards places  the  essential  distinction  between  a  Cal- 
vinist  and  an  Arminian,  in  their  different  ideas  of  the 
term  "  wzV/;"  and  of  course,  of  moral  agency. 

We  often  hear  Calvinistic  divines  make  use  of  the 
terms  irresistible  grace  ;  their  precise  meaning  is  not 
very  evident.  Grace  is  a  familiar  word  ;  and  com- 
mon people  seem  to  have  a  correct  notion  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word.  But  when  connected  with  the  term 
irresistible,  the  meaning  becomes  obscure  and  ambi- 
guous ;  and  they  are  capable  of  having  different  ideas 
affixed  to  them  ;  one  of  which  is,  that  man  is  a  mere 
machine  in  the  hands  of  his  creator :  tliat  God  is  the 
immediate  moving  cause  of  his  thoughts,  I  do  not 
say  actions,  because  it  appears  to  me  that  thoughts 
cannot  be  separated  from  actions.  God  created 
Adam,  and  breathed  ijito  him  the  breath  of  life  ;  that 
is,  I  apprehend,  the  same  as  the  inspiration  of  the 
Almighty  gave  him  understanding.  This  act  of 
God  arose  from  his  communicative  goodness :  no 
external  object  moved  him  to  perform  the  act.  The 
act,  in  my  sense  of  the  term  irresistible^  was  irresisti- 
ble. But  President  Edwards  tells  us,  that  the  term 
irresistible,  is  a  relative  term,  and  that  it  always  sup- 
poses resistance.  I  therefore  here,  according  to  him., 
use  the  term  improperly, because  in  creation,"  we  can 


299 

jiot  use  the  word  irresistible  with  a  rererence  to  any 
siipposable  opposition,  will,  or  endeavour."  The 
atonement  being  a  secret  co\  eniint  between  God  and 
the  Son,  was  not  irresistible  grace,  because  the  word 
cannot  be  used  with  a  reference  to  any  siipposable  op- 
position,  will,  or  endeavour.  The  atonement  is  some- 
thing that  exists  ;  and  the  learned  author  says,  it  is 
perfect  nonsense  to  apply  the  term  irresistible,  to  any 
thing  that  has  made  sure  of  its  existence.  What 
then  is  that  grace  which  does  not  exist,  is  resistible, 
and  yet  is  irresistible  ?  I  candidly  confess  I  do  not. 
know. 

If  regeneration  be  an  act  of  God,  similar  to  that  of 
making  Adam  a  living  soul,  no  external  object  mov- 
ing him  to  perform  the  act,  it  is  a  display  of  his  com- 
municative goodness,  but  not  of  ^ace,  in  the  common 
acceptation  of  the  term  ;  and  to  apply  the  term  irre- 
sistible here,  according  to  the  learned  author,  is  non- 
sense.     This  author  asserts,  that  no  new  faculty  of 
understanding  is  wanting ;   and  that  a  will  only  is 
wanting.    1  agree  that  in  an  impenitent  sinner,  a  wiU 
is  wanting.     But  I  cannot  perceive  that  he  has  told 
us  what  the  will  is.      In  giving  existence  to  intelli- 
gent beings,  God  was  not  moved  thereunto  by  any- 
external  motives  or  objects  :   but  after  their  exist- 
ence, they  WQie  surely  external  objects  to  God  him- 
self :  and  being  external  objects,  he  alone  knows  pre- 
cisely how  much  activitt/  he  has  communicated  to 
them ;  the  principle  of  thinking,  being  the  only  prin- 
ciple of  activity  that  man  is  conscious  of  in  himself; 
and,  exclusive  of  external  objects  presented  to  Jiiiia  tc 


300 

diiiik  about,  all  other  thinking  is  mere  imagination. 
God  himself  has  presented  to  our  minds  real  existing 
objects  to  think  about ;  and  he  knows  precisely  how 
^ve  can,  and  ought  to  think  about  those  objects.  And 
if  he  expressly  tells  us,  that  they  are  such  as  might, 
and  ought  to  influence  us,,  we  are  inexcusable  if  they 
do  not.  Fair  deductions  from  visible  things  to  in- 
t'isible,  is  not  imagination. 

The  incarnation,  and  sufferings,  as  well  as  the  re- 
iDurrection  and  ascension  to  glory  of  the  man  Jesus 
Christ,  Immanuel  God  with  us,  were  exhibitions  of 
infinitely  rich  grace  :  but  according  to  Edwards,  this 
rich  grace  was  not  irresistible  ;  because  man  could 
not  by  any  will,  or  endeavour  of  his  own,  oppose  it. 
According  to  him,  we  do  not  see  and  hear  irresisti- 
bly when  the  organs  of  seeing  and  hearing  are  in  a 
bOund  state,  and  we  do  actually  see  and  hear. 

The  miracles  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  wrought, 
the  light  that  shone  from  heaven  about  Paul,  was 
not  irresistible,  because  there  could  be  no  will,  oppo- 
sition, or  endeavour  against  them. 

We  are  now  led  to  inquire,  what  is  that  precise 
btate,  in  which  a  man  must  be,  to  be  able  to  resist 
irresistible  grace  ;  and  what  are  the  precise  ideas,  that 
are  to  be  affixed  to  the  terms  ?  I  leave  the  question 
with  others ;  I  am  incapable,  at  present,  of  solving  it. 

As  a  general  term,  grace  has  no  existence  out  of 
the  mind:  it  is  not  itself  a  being.  Grace  may  be 
implied  in  an  act  of  graciousness  :  for  example,  one 
man  may  voluntarily  bestow  upon  another,  some  ve- 
ry valuable  thing,  not  expecting  any  return  in  kind. 


501 

It  is  an  act  of  graciousiicss,  and  implies  grace,  to  pai- 
don  a  culprit  capitally  condemned.  In  Gospel  grace, 
there  are  several  distinct  acts  of  graciousness.  First, 
the  metliod  of  salvation  was  planned  and  ratified  iu 
iieaven,  and  is  among  the  secret  councils  of  God.  It 
contains  infinitely  rich  grace.  There  could  be  no 
human  will,  opposition,  or  endeavour  against  this  act 
of  grace.  Grace,  according  to  Edwards,  must  be 
some  immediate  acts  bet\\'een  God  and  the  sinner, 
in  which  irresistible  grace  overcomes  personal  resist- 
ance. If  this  be  any  view  of  Gospel  grace,  it  is  ma- 
nifest that  it  is  extremely  narrow  and  limited.  It 
places  grace  in  something  that  has  not  made  sure  of 
its  existence.  The  means  of  gospel  grace  are  real 
existences,  but  not  active  existences. 

By  irresistible  grace,  I  apprehend  that  we  are  to 
imderstand,  such  gracious  acts  and  exertions  of  pow- 
er, by  God,  as  cannot  be  resisted.  For  example,  it 
is  said,  that,  in  regeneration,  the  soul  is  so  changed 
by  an  immediate  act  of  God  as  that  it  becomes  en- 
tirely a  new  creature  :  and  that  without  such  immcr 
diate  exertion  of  power,  it  would  be  for  ever  incapa- 
ble of  perceiving  and  relishing  the  Gospel  system 
of  salvation.  The  word  of  life,  (till  such  immediate 
net,  no  external  motive  any  more  than  in  the  first  ori- 
ginal act  of  creation,  moving  God  to  exert  the  act  of 
power,  takes  place,)  will  be  a  mere  dead  letter.  From 
which  it  seems  to  follow,  that  the  salvation  of  some, 
ind  the  damnation  of  others,  are  immediate  acts  of 
God,  no  external  motive  operating  in  any  degree 


whatever  to  produce  them.     Obedience  and  disobe- 
dience are  not  brought  into  view  at  all. 

It  appears  to  nie,  that  irresistible  grace,  distinct  and 
different  from  the  means  of  grace  contained  in  the  holy 
Scriptures,  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  confession  of  faith 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States; 
imless  it  contain  doctrines  directly  ojjposed  to  each 
other ;  and  if  it  do,  we  have  a  right  to  adopt  that 
.  which  may  appear  most  reasonable  to  us.  There 
ure  many  phrases  in  this  confession  of  faith  that  may 
have  different  ideas  imposed  on  them  ;  and  I  am  sure 
that  presbyterian  divines  do  not  all  construe  them 
alike,  or  impose  on  them  one  and  the  same  meaning. 

The  confession  of  faith  agreed  to  by  the  London 
assembly  of  divines,  was  unquestionably  a  matter  of 
■•accommodation  among  themselves.      No  human  in- 
strument, where  fifty  or  a  hundred  have  been  con- 
cerned in  ratifying  and  adopting  it,  was  ever  ratified 
otherwise  than  on  the  principle  of  accommodation. 
•    I  will  here  introduce  several  of  the  articles  of  our 
confession.  Chap.  3.  sec.  1.  "  God,  from  all  eternity, 
did  by  the  most  v«^ise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own 
will,   freely  and  unchangeably,    ordain   whatsoever 
comes  to  pass ;  yet  so  as  thereby,  neither  is  God  the 
author  of  sin,  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the 
creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  the 
second  cause  taken  away,  but  rather  established." 

It  is  said  that  every  highly  important,  and  deeply 
"interesting  instrument  should  be  so  construed,  as  to 
make  it  harmonize  in  all  its  parts.  The  affirmation 
in  the  fir?t  nart  of  this  article,  and  the  neeation  in  the 


303 

second  part,  seem  to  be  irreconcilctble.  The  fir^t 
part  denies  any  activity  in  the  creature ;  and  that  God 
acts  from  no  consideration  of  any  external  objects, 
precisely  in  the  same  way  as  he  did  when  there  were 
none  :  and  before  creation  there  were  none.  Every 
event  in  this  world,  then,  must  be  an  event  which 
God  willed,  and  whatever  he  wills  he  takes  pleasure 
in.  The  consequence  is  inevitable — God  takes 
pleasure  in  sin.  But  the  negative  part  of  die  article 
is  directly  opposed  to  this  consequence  :  God  is  not 
the  author  of  any  thing,  that  is,  he  is  not  tlie  active 
doer  of  any  thing  but  what  he  takes  pleasure  in  ;  he 
is  not  the  author  of  sin  ;  and  he  confirms  it  with  an 
oath,  that  he  takes  no  pleasure  in  it.  What  may  be 
meant  by  the  words,  "  j\'or  is  violence  offered  to  the 
Tvillofthe  creatiiresj''  I  do  not  know;  at  present  I 
cannot  affix  any  rational  ideas  to  them ;  and  this  may 
fee  owing  to  my  not  having  maturely  deliberated  up- 
on them.  What  is  it  to  do  violence  to  the  will  ?  It 
is  here  apparent,  that  the  framers  of  the  confession  of 
faith,  supposed  that  there  was  a  Avill  external  of  the 
will  of  tlie  Deity.  But  God  does  no  violence  to  this 
external  will.  If  we  knew  precisely,  what  would  be 
domg  violence  to  this  external  will,  perhaps  we  might 
perceive  clearly  what  it  would  be,  to  do  no  violence 
to  it.  If  there  be  no  will  in  existence  but  the  will  of 
the  Deity,  no  violence  can  be  done  to  this  will ;  and 
this  appears  to  me  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  first  part. 
The  negative  part,  supposes  another  will ;  and  asserts 
that  it  is  doing  no  violence  to  this  will,  if  the  being 
who  possesses  it,  be,  by  the  will  of  the  Deity,  unin- 


304 

liuenced  by  any  external  objects,  doomed  to  sufter  the 
eternal  torments  of  hell.  The  secret  will  of  God,  is 
no  rule  for  man  to  act  by  ;  and  if  every  event  takes 
place  according  to  his  secret  will,  his  revealed  will  is 
something  ;  but  for  what  precise  end  it  was  revealed, 
is  as  yet  a  great  mystery.  If  the  justice  and  goodness 
of  God  admit  of  his  giving  existence  to  intelligent  be- 
ings, and  consigning  them  to  eternal  misery,  without 
any  regard  to  any  external  object  or  thing  whatever, 
the  inquiry  is  at  an  end  at  once. 

The  negative  part  of  the  article  says  further,  "  nor 
is  the  liberty  or  contijigenci/  of  the  second  cause  taken 
aivay^  but  rather  established.^''  I  ask  here,  what  we 
are  to  understand  by  the  words,  "  the  contingency  of 
she  second  cause  being  established?"  For  I  am  inca- 
pable of  imposing  upon  them  any  ideas  that  satisfy 
mvself.  The  term  council  and  counseL  ai"e  used  in 
the  confession  of  faith  ;  yet  they  arc  distinctly  differ- 
ent,  as  to  meaning,  in  the  English  language.  The 
words,  "  wise  and  most  holy  counsel j'''*  seem  to  me  to 
be  expletive  words.  God  does  something  not  of 
himself;  not  by  his  will,  but  by  the  counsel  of  his 
will ;  and  God,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of 
his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordains  what- 
soever comes  to  pass.  I  do  not  perceive,  that  any 
rational  sense  can  be  im[)osed  upon  the  term  -willy  as 
here  used.  It  seems  to  stand  for  a  distinct  being  id 
God.  If  it  had  been  said,  that  God  by  his  own  free 
will,  ordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  the  meaning 
of  the  term  tw7/,  would  be,  perhaps,  the  same  as  Ed- 
wards' definition  of  it,  that  is,  "  the  xvill  is  that  by 


305 

ivhich  the  mind  c/woses.*' ,  And  according  to  Ed- 
wards, God,  as  well  as  the  creature,  acts  by  the  will. 
If  the  term  ordain^  embrace  will,  and  an  actual  exer- 
cise of  po\ver  by  God  in  every  event,  it  will  be  man- 
ifest, that  it  is  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
give  any  rational  meaning  to  the  negative  part  of  the 
first  article.  Some  Hopkinsians  ascend  higher  than 
tlie  Edwardists,  by  striking  out  of  their  creed  the 
tcnhs  ^^  permissive  Tvill  of  the  Deity. ^"^  Of  course, 
God  is  the  author  of  sin,  by  choice  and  by  act. 

Sec.  2.  "  Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may 
or  can  cbitie  to  pass  upon  all  supposed  conditions ; 
yet  hath  he  not  decreed  any  thing  because  he  foresaw 
it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come  to  pass  on; 
such  conditions." 

I  am  very  doubtful,  whether  I  comprehend  the  pre- 
cise ideas  meant  to  be  conveyed  by  the  words  of  this 
article.  Speaking  properly,  God  has  no  foreknow-: 
ledge  :  there  is  no  past,  or  future  with  him.  Ideas 
by  succession  do  not  take  place  in  the  divine  mind. 
If  God  be  not  moved  in  any  act  of  his,  by  any  exter-i 
nal  object,  or  thing,  what  can  be  meant  by  the 
\YOT^s '•'•  supposed  conditions  ?"**  These  words  surely, 
in  connexion  with  the  words  that  precede  them,  cari- 
not  have  any  sensible  meaning  affixed  to  them,  other- 
wise than  by  supposing,  that  there  are  intelligent  be- 
ings that  have  wills,  external  of  the  Deity.  The  last 
clause  of  tlie  section  is  negative,  arid  denies  that  Gqd 

2   R 


506 

iii  his  deerees,  is  moved  to  decree  from  any  external 
object  or  thing  whatever.  What  is  meant  by  these 
words,  I  do  not  know — ''  or  as  that  which  would 
come  to  pass  on  such  supposed  conditions. ^^  Was  the 
sentence  of  death  passed  upon  Adam,  not  because 
God  foreknew  that  he  would  transgress,  but  because, 
without  any  respect  to  the  transgression,  he  had  de- 
creed that  he  should  be  sentenced  to  death  ?  Further, 
he  had  decreed,  not  being  moved  thereunto  by  any 
external  object,  that  Adam  should  transgress.  The 
argument  seems  to  be  this :  when  God  commenced  to 
create,  he  could  not  be  moved  thereto  by  any  exter- 
nal object  or  thing  wliatever ;  therefore  when  he  had 
given  being  to  intelligent  creatures,  no  external  ac- 
tions of  theirs,  were  the  occasion  of  any  decree  of 
God  respecting  4liem. 

If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  article,  my  feeble 
reason  does  not  enable  me  to  give  my  assent  to  it ; 
not  because  it  is  above,  but  against  my  reason. 

3d.  "  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation 
of  his  own  glory,  some  men,  and  angels,  are  predesti- 
nated unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore-ordained  to 
everlasting  death,'* 

This  article  appears  to  me  to  be  precisely  against 
2A\y  *^  permissive  will  m  the  Deity. ^^  I  acknowledge 
that  the  terms,  "  permissive  wiUj^^aie  unintelligible  to 
me  ;  where  no  activity  is  required,  no  will  is  necessa- 
ry. God  permitted  Adam  to  sin ;  he  did  not  choose, 
or  more  properly,  will,  that  Adam  should  sin ;  so  tliat 


J,    ^'-^ 


507 

the  terms  penmssive  wi//,  must,  ii"  they  iiave  any 
meaning,  intend  no  will.  The  gi'cat  difficulty  with 
respect  to  the  above  article,  is  to  find  out  the  meaning 
of  the  term  decree.  Before  creation  began,  there  was 
nothing  external  of  God ;  he  existed  alone.  No  exter- 
nal existence  could  operate  on  the  mind  of  God,  to 
induce  him  to  begin  to  create  external  objects.  God 
knew  he  could  create  ;  and  decreed  or  willed  to  cre- 
ate. If  the  term  decree,  m  this  third  article,  is  to  be 
taken  strictly  in  the  above  sense,  I  cannot  at  present 
think  that  the  article  is  cwrect.  In  the  above  sense, 
it  docs  not  harmonize  with  what  is  said  elsewhere 
in  the  confession  of  faith :  for  it  makes  God  the  au- 
thor of  sin,  salvation,  and  damnation,  precisely  intlie 
same  way  that  he  was  the  author  of  creation.  In 
this  sense,  I  cannot  but  reject  the  article  with  ablvar- 
rence. 

Sec.  4th.  "  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predes- 
tinated, and  fore-ordained,  are  particularly,  and  un- 
changeably designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain 
and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  di- 
minished." 

It  must  be  granted  that  God  knows  all  his  own 
works,  and  all  the  works  of  men  and  angels,  from 
beginning  to  the  end.  His  foreseeing  and  foreknow- 
ing an  event,  is,  as  to  certainty,  as  sure  as  any  thing 
that  does  or  may  exist,  by  an  absolute,  original  de- 
cree of  God — he  was  not  the  author  of  sin  ;  he  ab- 
hors it ;  yet  he  certainly  knew  that  it  would  exist,  be- 
fore he  created  Adam. 

The  term  **M«J,"  in  this   article,  undoubtejdiy 


308 

refers  us  to  the  3d  article,  for  the  meaning  of  this  ar- 
ticle :  we  need  not,  therefore,  add  any  thing  more 
here  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  3d  article. 

I  do  freely  acknowledge,  that  I  am  not  capable  of 
harmonizing  the  perfect  foreknowledge  of  the  Deit}" 
as  to  all  past  and  future  events,  with  the  freedom  of 
the  creature.  Finding,  however,  that  I  do  act,  and 
tliat  some  of  my  actions  are  such  as  God  in  his  holy 
word  assures  me  he  abhors  ;  I  infer  that  I  have  the 
power  of  abusing  God's  goodness  and  grace :  and 
therefore,  that  I  am  a  free  agent,  and  have  the  power 
of  doing  acts  which  are  peculiarly  my  own,  and  not 
God's.  Now  this  being  to  me  a  self-evident  propo- 
sition, it  is  incapable  of  demonstration.  If  in  theolo- 
gical controversies,  self-evident  propositions  were 
carefully  separated  from  such  as  are  not,  and  simple, 
from  complex  ideas,  perhaps  we  should  not  so  often 
find  authors  attempting  to  demonstrate  self-evident 
propositions,  and  to  define  a  simple  idea,  which  is  in- 
capable of  definition. 

Sec.  5th.  "  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predesti- 
nated unto  life,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  was  laid,  according  to  his  eternal  and  immuta- 
ble purpose,  and  the  secret  and  good  pleasure  of  his 
will,  hath  chosen  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory^ 
out  of  his  mere  free  grace  and  love,  without  any  fore- 
sight of  faith  or  good  works,  or  perse^'erance  in  either 
of  them,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature,  as  condi- 
tions or  causes  moving  him  thereunto  :  and  all  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  grace." 

See.  6th.     "  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto 


309 

glory,  so  liath  lie,  liy  the  eterrtal  and  most  free  pur- 
pose of  his  will,  rore-orcUiined  all  the  means  tliere- 
unto.  Wherefore  they  who  are  elected,  being  fallen 
in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ,  are  effectual]  called 
unto  faith  in  Christ  by  his  working  in  due  season, 
iu-e  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  by  his  own 
power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither  arc  any 
other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified, 
adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only." 

These  two  sections  having  principally  a  relation  to 
the  elect,  are  in  fact,  but  one  general  statement  re- 
specting them.  I  say  principally  ;  but  upon  reflec- 
tion I  am  convinced  that  they  have  a  sole  relation  to 
tlie  elect,  justified,  sanctified,  and  adopted.  The 
doctrine  contained  in  the  5th  sec.  is  unquestionably 
highly  antiiiomian.  If  the  doctrine  be,  as  the  section 
asserts,  among  the  secret  coimsels  ofGody  I  dare  not 
think  that  I  have  any  ability  to  explain,  unfold,  or  to 
make  any  important  doctrinal  inference  from  any 
thing  that  is  a  perfect  secret  to  me.  The  words 
"  ruithout  any  foresight  offaith^^^  do  not  appear  to 
me  to  harmonize  with  what  Paul  says,  Rom.  viii.  29. 
"  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predesti- 
nate/' &c.  The  words  in  this  article  convey  this  idea 
to  me — God's  decrees  precede  his  knowledge,  which 
is  absurd  :  or  God,  without  any  external  motive,  made 
some  men  originally  to  be  saved,  precisely  in  the 
same  way,  that,  before  any  dependent  intelligent  be- 
ing existed,  he  gave  existence  to  them,  not  being 
moved  to  do  it  by  any  external  object  or  thing  what- 
ever.    C^od  made  use  of  no  means,  when  he  said,  let 


i^tZlM^ 


310 

there  be  liglbt,  and  there  jvas  light  What  the  pre- 
cise distinction  is,  between  God's  working  without 
means,  and  working  with  means,  and  his  not  working 
at  all,  in  the  productiou  of  sinful  acts,  as  he  certainly 
does  not;  especially  his  working  without,  and  with 
means,  is  not  easy  to  be  explained.  Some  seem  to 
have  supposed  that  God  may  do  by  means,  what  he 
could  not  do  without  means.  By  means  he  may  be 
in  a  sense,  the  author  of  sin  ;  without  them  he  could 
not  be.  By  means,  he  may  be  the  author  of  the  sal- 
Yation  of  some  of  the  sons  of  Adam,  that  have  trans- 
gressed his  holy  law  ;  without  means,  he  could  not 
!>e  ;  his  justice  is  and  must  be  spotless :  and  the 
shedding  of  blood  is  the  only  means  whereby  mercy 
and  truth  could  meet  together  ;  and  righteousness 
and  peace  could  have  kissed  each  other. 

The  6th  section  says,  '*  As  God  hath  appointed 
the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he  fore- ordained  all  the 
means  thereunto.''  To  this  proposition  I  do  not  at 
present  perceive  that  any  objection  can  be  made  :  but 
m  this  article  we  find  these  words  ;  "  neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justifi- 
ed, adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved,  but  only  the 
elect."  This  clause  is  precise,  as  to  particular,  in 
opposition  to  universal  redemption.  From  mature 
reflection  upon  Calvin's  system  of  divinity^  which  I 
consider  as  a  rigid  system,  so  far  as  it  has  been  repre- 
sented to  me  by  Calvinistic  authors,  I  have  no  hesi- 
tation in  saying,  that  holding  to  universal,  and  de- 
nying particular  redemption,  is,  (if  not  decapitating,) 
ctrtting  off  the  right  arm  of  Calvinism,  and  leaving 


311 

nothing  but  the  Arminmn,  the  left  arm.  The  pbm 
meaning  of  the  article  is,  none  arc  redeemed  by- 
Christ,  but  only  the  elect.  I  acknowledge,  tliat 
jione  are  effectually  redeemed  by  Christ,  but  such  as 
are  actually  saved.  It  is  not,  however,  in  conse- 
quence of  any  defect  in  the  redemption,  in  the  price 
paid,  iuid  the  actual  purchase  made  by  Christ,  that 
others  are  not  saved ;  because  it  is  said  of  some, 
that  they  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  tliem.  Being 
slaves  of  sin,  Christ  paid  an  ample  price  for  their  freer 
dom,  yet  they  refuse  to  be  freemen,  which  they  caur 
not  be  otherwise  than  by  owning  and  receiving  Christ 
as  their  Master.  There  was  a  sufficiency  in  Jesus 
Christ,  to  save  those  to  whom  he  said,  Ye  will  not 
come  unto  me,  that  yc  might  be  saved. 

I  readily  grant,  that  the  bible  alone  contains  a  full 
and  complete  exhibition  of  the  fore-ordained  means, 
and  that  we  are  in  consequence  of  diat  perfect  exhi- 
bition, as  Paul  says,  "  To  work  out  our  own  salva- 
tion with  fear  and  trembling  :  for  it  is  God  that  workf 
cth  in  us,  both  to  will,  and  to  do,  of  his  own  good 
pleasure." 

Though  the  means  of  grace,  by  a  decree  of  God, 
by  his  own  fiat,  absolutely  and  unqualifiedly  irresist- 
ible, exist,  as  we  find  them  exhibited  to  us  in  the  holy 
scriptures,  yet  the  holy  scriptures  being  existences, 
are  not  active  existences.  The  question  that  has,  and 
probably  will  continue  to  perplex  some  sober  inqui- 
rers, is,  as  there  must  be  activity  in  the  use  of  the 
means,  where  does  it  commence  ?  In  the  creature,  or 
in  the  holy  spirit's  mgving.the  creature  to  be  active  in 


31^ 

the  use  of  the  means  ?  If  Doct.  Witherspoon  be  cor- 
rect, this  question  cannot  be  resolved — and  of  course 
there  must  be  liberty  to  think  differently  respecting 
it.  If  however,  it  be  self-evident  to  every  one,  that 
he  possesses  activity,  and  it  appears  to  me  that  it 
must  be  so ;  then  another  question  arises,  to  what 
extent  has  man  activity  ?  We  readily  grant  that  it  is 
very  limited.  Thinking  implies  activity  :  reading 
and  hearing  imply  thinking.  Whenever  we  read  the 
system  of  salvation  contained  in  the  Evangelists,  we 
ought  to  think  that  the  holy  spirit  is  speaking  to  our- 
selves immediately,  and  moving  and  exciting  activity 
in  us,  by  presenting  to  our  minds  objects  infinitely 
worthy  of  God,  and  of  our  reception.  In  this  view, 
the  holy  spirit  first  moves  to  activity.  If  there  be 
aiiother  way,  a  secondary  way,  in  which  the  holy 
spirit  moves  the  creature  to  activity,  it  is  to  me  a  se- 
cret way.  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and 
ye  hear  the  sound  thereof,  but  cannot  tell  whence  it 
Cometh,  nor  whither  it  goeth,  so  is  every  one  that  is 
born  of  the  spirit,"  Now  if  this  being  born  of  the 
spirit,  be  an  act  precisely  similar  to  that  of  God's 
giving  existence  to  Adam,  his  own  goodness,  and 
nothing  else,  moving  him  to  it,  and  the  holy  scriptures 
are  totally  useless  before  the  new  birth,  then  it  is  not 
effected  by  means  ;  it  is  an  immediate  act  of  God, 
respecting  which  the  creature  has  no  activity.  This, 
however,  I  cannot  think  is  the  meaning  of  the  text, 
becau&e  it  would  carry  us  to  tlie  extremity  of  the 
most  rigid  Calvinism  ;    and  because  several  plain" 


313 

texts  of  scripture,  are  directly  opposed  to  such  a  doc- 
trine. 

Sec.  7.  "  The  rest  of  mankind,  God  was  pleased, 
according  to  tlic  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will, 
whereby  he  extcndcth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he 
pleaseth  for  tlic  glory  of  his  sovereign  power  over 
his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to  ordain  them  to  dis- 
honour and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the  praise  of  his 
glorious  grace." 

It  must  be  acknowledged,  that  many  of  God's 
thoughts  and  purposes  respecting  fallen  man,  are  in- 
scrutable and  past  finding  out,  as  well  by  the  best 
christians,  as  by  those  hardened  in  sin,  who  die  in 
impenitence.  But  christians,  aud  I  hope  'very  ex- 
cellent christians,  are  led  by  reasoning  a  priori.,  to 
draw  the  most  absurd  inferences :  nothing  short  of 
this,  that  God  is  the  real  actor  and  doer  of  all  the 
acts  of  the  human  mind  ;  and  of  all  that  takes  place 
in  consequence  of  those  acts  of  man,  God  is  the  au- 
thor. The  learned  world,  has  unanimously  decided, 
that  the  method,  or  way  of  reasoning  a  priori^  is  ex- 
tremely dangerous,  and  leads  many  in  Malebranche's 
words,  "  to  see  all  things  in  God^  It  may  lead  to  an 
explicit  contradiction  of  what  God  expressly  declares 
in  his  holy  word.  This  article  asserts,  that  it  is  to  the 
praise  of  God's  glorious  grace  to  punish  impenitent 
sinners,  for  whom  Christ  did  not  die.  Now  how 
this  can  be  to  the  praise  of  (jod's  glorious  grace  ?  If 
it  be  true  that  it  is  so,  I  readily  confess  that  it  exceeds 
all  the  powers  of  my  imagination  ;  and  is  not  only 

2  s 


314 

above  my  reason,  but  explicitly  against  it.  The  con- 
fession of  faith  expressly  asserts  that  Christ  died  for 
the  elect  only.  Here  unquestionably  is  free  and  pure 
grace.  Is  there  any  grace  in  punishing  those  who 
never  had  the  ofifer  of  grace  ?  Those  that  Christ  did 
not  lay  down  his  precious  life  to  save  ?  If  there  be 
any  remote  kind  of  grace  in  punishing  sinners,  for 
whom  Christ  did  not  die,  I  could  pray  to  be  furnish- 
ed with  a  definition  of  this  specific  kind  of  grace ;  for 
it  must  be  sui  generis.  If  the  scriptures  expressly 
assert  to  be  true,  what  the  article  affirms  to  be  true, 
I  am  bound  to  believe  the  scriptures  ;  that  is,  God 
speaks  in  them  immediately  to  me,  and  to  every  one 
that  enjoys  the  great  privilege  of  reading  them.  But, 
God  be  thanked,  that  I  am  not  bound  to  believe  what 
man  says  God  says,  is  true :  when  man  undertakes 
to  tell  me  what  God's  secret  and  unsearchable  coun- 
cils  or  counsels  are,  I  am  sure  that  he  is  travelling 
out  of  his  record,  and  is  in  the  high  a  priori  road. 

Sec.  8th.  "  The  doctrine  of  this  high  mystery  of 
predestination,  is  to  be  handled  with  special  prudence 
and  care,  that  men  attending  the  will  of  God  revealed 
in  his  word,  and  yielding  obedience  thereunto,  may, 
from  the  certainty  of  their  effectual  vocation,  be  as. 
sured  of  their  eternal  salvation.  So  shall  this  doctrine 
afford  matter  of  praise,  reverence,  and  admiration  of 
God  ;  and  of  humility,  diligence,  and  abundant  con- 
solation to  all  that  sincerely  obey  the  gospel." 

If  the  doctrine  of  predestination  be  a  mystery,  a 
high  mystery,  I  am  morally  certain,  that  God  has 
not  commissioned  any  mortal  man,  to  explain  and 


315 

unfold  to  mortal  man,  the  high  mystery.  The  mj's- 
teries  of  God,  ciinnot  be  handled  at  all,  either  with 
or  without  special  care  and  prudence — what  data  has 
God  given  us  to  handle  them  ?  None  whatever.  If 
he  had  given  us  any,  they  would  enable  us  to  unfold 
the  mystery'  ;  and  then  we  should  not  see  through 
a  glass  darkly.  The  rigid  Calvinist  says,  there  is  no 
myster}' ;  he  understands  all  God's  secret  designs  and 
purposes.  Now  tlie  tenets  of  those  that  have  been 
called  Calvinists,  are  widely  different.  The  doc- 
trine of  particular  and  universal  redemption,  makes 
the  distinction  between  immoderate  and  moderate 
Calvinists.  The  immoderate  Calvinist  reasons  a 
priori:  the  moderate  Calvinist,  reasons  a  posteriori. 

This  8th  Section  plainly  contains  this  idea,  that 
the  high  mystery  of  predestination  is  not  a  revealed 
truth  :  how  then  do  we  arrive  at  the  idea,  that  it  is 
a  truth  ?  *'  The  doctrine  of  this  high  mystery  of 
predestination  is  to  be  handled  with  special  prudence 
and  care,  that  men  attending  the  will  oy  God  revealed 
in  his  word,*^  &c.     The  ideas  meant  to  be  conveyed 
by  these  words  is  not  very  evident.     It  is  however 
manifest,  that  they  are  unhappily  connected  together. 
I  do  not  know  what  idea  to  affix  to  the  term  "  thatJ'* 
The  purport  of  the  words  seems  to  be  this:  men  with 
special  prudence  and  care,  may  handle  the  doctrine 
of  the  high  mystery  of  predestination,  but  they  will 
do  more  wisely  to  attend  to  the  will  of  God  revealed 
in  his  word ;  and  if  they  do,  they  will  not  handle 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  at  all. 

Chap.  6.  Sec.  5.   "  God  in  his  ordinary  provi- 


316 

dence,  maketh  use  of  means,  yet  is  free  to  work  with- 
out, above,  and  against  theniy  at  his  pleasure.*'  Here 
I  make  no  remarks,  because  the  terms  "  against 
theTJiy*^  are  unintelHgible  to  me.  If  God  appointeth 
the  means,  does  he  work  against  his  appointment  ? 

Chap.  5.  Sec.  2.  "  Although,  in  relation  to  the 
foreknowledge  and  decree  of  God,  the  first  cause, 
all  things  come  to  pass  immutably  and  infallibly ;  yet 
by  the  same  providence,  he  ordereth  them  to  fall  out 
according  to  the  nature  of  second  causes,  either  ne- 
cessarily, freely,  or  contingently." 

Sec.  4.  "  The  Almighty  Power,  unsearchable 
wisdom,  and  infinite  goodness  of  God,  so  far  manifest 
themselves  in  his  providence,  that  it  extendeth  itself 
even  to  the  first  fall,  and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and 
men ;  and  that  not  by  a  bare  permission,  but  such  as 
hath  joined  with  it  a  most  wise  and  po'  erful  bound- 
ing, and  otherwise  ordering  and  governing  of  them, 
in  a  manifold  dispensation  to  his  own  holy  ends; 
yet  so,  as  the  sinfulness  thereof  proceedeth  only  from 
the  creature,  and  not  from  God ;  who  being  most 
holy  and  righteous,  neither  is  nor  can  be  the  author, 
or  approver  of  sin." 

Chap.  6.  "  Our  first  parents  being  seduced  by 
the  subtlety  and  temptation  of  Satan,  sinned  in  eat- 
ing the  forbidden  fruit.  This  their  sin  God  was 
pleased,  according  to  his  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to 
permit,  having  purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own 
glory." 

Sec.  4.  "  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby 
we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  oppo.- 


317 

site  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  6p 
proceed  all  actual  transgressions." 

Chap.  9.  "  God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with 
that  natural  liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by 
any  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  determined  to  good 
or  evil." 

Chap.  20.  Sect  2.  "God  alone  js  Lord  of  the 
conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from  the  doctrines 
and  commandments  of  men,  which  are  in  any  thing 
contrary  to  his  word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters  of  faith 
or  worship.  So  that  to  believe  such  doctrines,  or 
to  obey  such  commandments  out  of  conscience,  is 
to  betray  true  liberty  of  conscience  ;  and  the  requir- 
ing an  implicit  faith,  and  an  absolute  and  blind  obe- 
dience, is  to  destroy  liberty  of  conscience,  and  reason 
also." 

I  think  it  is  manifest,  that  our  confession  of  faith 
does  both  expressly  assert,  and  expressly  deny,  the 
permissive  -will  of  the  Deity.  If  this  be  not  correct, 
I  am  open  to  conviction. 

This  confession  differs,  in  some  respects,  material- 
ly from  the  confession  of  faith,  drawn  up  and  adopt- 
ed by  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines.  My 
authority  for  saying  so,  is  Dr.  Richard  Price,  to  be 
found  in  the  173d  page  of  a  volume  of  his  Sermons 
printed  at  Boston,  1794.  He  says,  "  concerning  all 
who  oppose  such  doctrines  as  these,  and  maintain 
opinions  contrary  to  the  known  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity ;"  ''  they  say,  they  may  be  lawfully  called  to 
account^  and  proceeded  against  by  the  censures  of  the 
Churchy  and  the  power    of   the   civil   magis- 


318 

TRATE,  WHO  HAS  AUTHORITY,  AND  WHOSE  DUTY 
IT  IS  TO  PRESERVE  UNITY  IN  THE  CHURCH,  TO 
KEEP  THE  TRUTH  OF  GOD  PURE  AND  ENTIRE, 
AND  TO  SUPPRESS  HERESY." 

"But  at  the  same  time  it  is  added,  that  in  doing 
this,  the  civil  magistrate  is  to  be  only  the  execution- 
erofPresbyteries  and  Synods," WITH  whom  he  is  to 

CONSULT  AND  ADVISE  AND  TOWHOMITBELONG- 
ETH  TO  DECIDE  CONTROVERSIES  OF  FAITH,  AND 
TO'SET  DOWN  RULES  FOR  THE  ORDERING  THE  PUB- 
LIC WORSHIP  OF  God,  and  government  of  his 
Church,  and  authoritatively  to  deter- 
mine THE  SAME  ;  which  DETERMINATIONS  ARE 
TO  BE  RECEIVED  WITH  REVERENCE  AND  SUB- 
MISSION, as  coming  from  a  power  which  is  the  or- 
dinance of  God.  lb.  Chap.  20.  Sec.  4  ;  Chap.  23. 
Sec.  3  ;  and  Chap.  31.  Sec.  3.  How  adverse  to 
every  principle  of  religious  liberty  and  charity  !'* 

In  die  20th  chapter  of  our  confession  of  faith,  wc 
do  not  find  these  sentiments.  The  title  of  this  chap- 
ter is,  "  of  Christian  liberty,  and  liberty  of  con- 
science." I  confess  I  do  not  approve  of  the  4th 
sec.  of  this  chapter.  But  it  contains  no  sentiments 
similar  to  those  which  Dr.  Price  quotes  from  the  con- 
fession of  faith  of  the  Westminster  divines. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  do  not  think  that  the  articles 
of  confession  of  our  faith  can  be  made  to  harmonize, 
otherwise  than  by  giving  to  the  term  "  decree^''  two 
distinct  and  different  meanings.  For  example, 
"  God  said  let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light." 
Now,  we  suppose  that  light  existed  by  a  decree  of 


319 

God  ;  and  if  it  did  exist  by  a  decree  of  God,  which  I 
presume  vv  ill  not  be  denied  ;  then,  1  do  not  hesitate  to 
say  that,  in  the  same  sense  of  a  decree,  God  never 
said,  let  there  be  sin,  and  sin  was  :  consequently,  if 
it  be  correct  to  say  that  sin  exists,  by  a  decree  of 
God,  die  term  decree  must  have  two  meanings.  The 
first  iuid  the  fourth  section  of  the  6th  chapter,  contain 
paradoxies  tliat  I  connot  resolve. 

The  first  section  says,  "  this  their  sin,  God  W3S 
pleased,  according  to  his  wise  and  holy  counsel,  to 
permity  having  purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own 
glory." 

Sec.  4.  "  From  tliis  original  corruption  do  prop 
ceed  all  actual  transgressions.^''  Surely  Adam  trans- 
gressed, but  not  from  original  corruption.  Was 
not  Adam's  transgression  an  actual  transgression  ? 

Gen.  ii.  17-  "  But  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,"  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in  the 
day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die.'* 
Now  if  this  were  a  decree  of  God,  it  surely  cannot  be 
a  decree  in  a  sense  similar  to  that  of,  "  God  said,  let 
there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  The  written 
laws  of  God  are  decrees. 

**  The  system  of  faith  which  has  been  generally 
called  Calvinism,  includes  in  it  the  five  following 
doctrines. 

"  First.  The  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination, 
and  election. 

*'  Second.     The  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

"  Thirdly.  The  doctrine  of  the  total  impotence 
of  man,  and  irresistible  grace,  in  opposition  to  free 
wUI. 


32a 

"  Fourthly.     The  doctrine  of  particular y  in  oppo- 
sition to  universal^  redemption. 
'?f.*f;  Fifthly.     The  doctrine  of  the  perseverence  of 
Saints,  after  being  once  called  and  converted. 

"  These  five  doctrines  have  been  called,  by  way 
of  distinction  and  eminence,  the  five  points. — ■ 
They  are  the  points  about  which  the  sect  called  Ar- 
minians  differ  from  Calviftists,  and  in  litigating  them, 
volumes  without  number  have  been  written,  much 
zeal  employed,  and  an  infinity  of  what  is  most  im- 
portant in  religion,  (I  mean  charity,  and  a  good  tem- 
per,) has  been  lost."     Price^s  sermons,  p.  158,  159. 

I  do  not  quote  Price  as  a  correct  divine  in  all 
things,  but  I  do  appeal  to  him  as  a  man,  who  had  a 
faculty  of  distinguishing,  in  an  uncommon  degree ; 
as  a  lover  of  truth,  and  as  a  most  patient  and  laborious 
investigator  of  it,  as  it  appeared  to  his  own  mind. 

The  venerable  and  pious  assembl)r  of  divines  in 
the  larger  catechism,  question  72,  ask,  "  what  is  jus- 
tifying faith?"  Answer — "  justifying  faith  is  a  sav- 
ing grace,  wrought  in  the  heart  of  a  sinner,  by  the 
spirit  and  word  of  God  ;  whereby  he,  being  convinc- 
ed of  his  sin  and  misery,  and  of  the  disability  in 
himself,  and  all  other  creatures  to  recover  him  out 
of  his  lost  condition,  not  only  assenteth  to  the  truth 
of  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  but  rcceiveth  and  rest- 
eth  upon  Christ  and  his  righteousness  therein  held 
forth,  for  pardon  of  sin,  and  for  the  accepting  and  i 
accounting,  of  his  person  righteous  in  the  sight  of 
God  for  salvation."  I  find  no  fault  with  the  descrip- 
tion here  given  of  justifying  faith.      It  is,  however, 


321 

a  tnerc  description,  and  not  a  definition  of  the  terms 
justifyuig  faith.  The  efficient  causes  of  justifying 
faith  arc  represented  as  being  two,  that  is,  the  spirit 
and  the  word  of  God ;  but  these  Reverend  divines 
say  that  God  worketh  with,  or  without  means. — 
Now,  if  the  word  be  an  ordinary  means  of  justifying 
faith,  and  God  may  justify  without  these  ordina- 
ry means,  the  description  is  not  perfectly  correct. 
In  my  humble  opinion  it  is  incorrect  in  another  point 
of  view ;  for  surely  there  cannot  be  two  efficient  cau- 
ses of  salvation ;  the  answer  is,  "  by  the  spirit  and 
word  of  GodJ*^ 

.    Q.  73.  "  How  doth  faith  justify  a  sinner  in  the 
sight  of  God?" 

A,  "  Faith  justifies  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God» 
not  because  of  those  other  graces,  which  do  always 
accompany  it,  or  of  good  works  that  are  the  fruit  of 
it:  nor  as  if  the  grace  of  faith,  or  any  act  thereof, 
were  imputed  to  him  for  his  justification ;  but  only 
as  it  is  an  instrument  by  which  he  receiveth  and  appli- 
eth  Christ  and  his  righteousness."  This  answer  of  the 
Rev.  and  pious  Divines,  does  not  convey  any  distinct 
and  clear  idea  to  my  mind.  "  Faith  justifies  only  a^ 
it  is  an  instrument.^*  I  readily  confess,  I  have  la- 
boured to  find  out  what  precise  ideas  are  to  be  affix- 
ed to  the  words  of  this  answer,  but  I  have  not  yet 
found  them.  To  say,  that  an  instrument  justifies, 
is  saying  something,  but  surely  it  is  no  definition  of 
justifying  faith.  Hov/  historical,  or  saving  faith  are 
instruments,  I  fretly  confess  I  do  not  know.     There 

O     T 


can  be  no  historical  or  saving  faith  without  thinking  : 
is  thinking  an  instrument  ?  If  it  be,  is  it  the  essence 
of  the  soul  ?  If  it  be  the  essence  of  the  soul,  what 
sort  of  an  instrument  is  the  essence  of  the  soul  ?  I 
answer,  I  know  not ;  I  confess  my  own  ignorance, 
and  I  depend  on  God's  mercy,  to  forgive  the  sins 
that  I  have  committed  in  perfect  ignorance.  J  be- 
lieve the  soul  is  an  essence,  (how  it  is  so,  I  know 
not,)  and  that  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  hath 
given  it  understanding.  Which  is  the  instrument^ 
the  understanding,  or  the  inspiration  of  the  Almigh- 
ty ?  What  is  an  instrument,  when  used  as  a  symbolr 
ical  term  ?  These  words  in  the  answer  are  not  intelli- 
gible to  me,  "  but  only  as  it  is  an  instrument,  by 
which  he  receiveth,  and  applieth^  Christ  and  his  right- 
eousness." Saving,  or  justifying  faith,  I  apprehend, 
implies  hearing,  seeing,  feeling,  tasting,  and  relishing 
the  gospel  system  of  salvation. 

The  following  is  a  short  sketch  of  the  rise  of  Armi- 
nianism  in  Holland. 

James  Arminius,  and  Francis  Gomarus,  both  pro- 
fessors of  Theology  in  the  University  of  Leyden,  eij- 
tertai^ied  and  supported,  respecting  the  decrees  of 
God,  the  confession  of  faith  and  the  catechism,  opin 
ions  so  diametrically  opposite,  and  charged  each  oth- 
er with  errors  so  odious,  that  after  the  month  of  De- 
cember, 1608,  they  were  cited  to  appear  before  the 
high  council,  which  imposed  silence  upon  both  pro- 
fessors, ordering  them  to  maintain  concord  between 
themselves,  and  to  continue  in  peace,  until  this  dis- 
pute should  be  decided  and  terminated,  in  a  national 


$23 

or  provincial  synod.  The  silence  imposed  was,  how- 
ever,  illy  observed,  and  the  two  professors  clashed 
more  and  more.  The  ministers,  generally,  followed 
the  opinion  of  Gomariis,  \vho  supported  the  ideas, 
that  "  God  by  an  eternal  and  absolute  decree,  had 
decreed,  who  should  be  saved  and  who  should  be 
damned :  and  that  agreeably  to  this  decree,  some 
were  drawn  to  faith  and  piety,  whilst  God  left  others 
buried  in  their  misery  and  impiety." 

The  magistracy,  on  the  contrary,  were  pretty  gen- 
erally for  the  more  moderate  opinion  of  Arminiiis, 
who  said,  that  *'  God  from  all  eternity  had  made  this 
distinction  between  sinners :  that  those  who  would 
repent  of  their  faults,  and  would  put  their  confidence 
in  Jesus  Christ,  should  receive  pardon  for  their  sins, 
and  life  eternal ;  but  that  the  impenitent  and  unbe- 
lievers  should  be  punished  :  that  God  desired  that  all 
men  should  be  converted,  and  persevere  in  tlie  know- 
ledge of  the  truth,  but  that  he  did  not  constrain  any 
body."  In  the  midst  of  these  disputes,  Arminius 
died  of  a  consumption.  Before  his  death  he  declar- 
ed that  he  had  taught  nothing,  but  what,  after  the 
most  severe  examination,  he  had  judged  conforma- 
ble to  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  the  most  proper  to  /, 
reunite  protestants.                                                            iOatJu^^ 

Conrad  Vortius  succeeded  him  in  the  professor- 
ship, who,  it  was  thought,  departed  still  further  than 
Arminius  had  done  i?iom  the  ordinary  doctrine  of 
the  reformed.  In  a  short  time  the  divisions  had 
every  where  become  deeply  rooted ;  and  soon  the 
fatal  effects  of  then>  were  seen.     At  Alkmaar,  where 


324 

^key  had  Suspended  the  minister  Adolphus  Venatoi- 
from  his  functions,  for  having  refused  to  sign  the 
catechism  and  confession  of  faith,  there  were  raised 
troubles  which  were  carried  so  far,  that  it  became 
necessary  to  change  the  regency  immediately.  It 
was  thought  that  the  consequences  would  have  been 
still  more  fatal  at  Leeu warden,  in  Friesland,  where  the 
discontented  committed  acts  of  violence.  The  first 
day  of  tlie  year  1610,  the  populace  assembled  before 
the  Ciry  Hotel,  broke  the  windows,  and  forced  open 
the  door  of  the  chamber  where  the  council  was  assem- 
bled ;  expelled  from  it  all  the  members ;  and  then, 
aided  by  bands  of  tradesmen,  who  had  caused  the 
Bourgeoise  to  be  put  under  arms,  formed  a  new  re-, 
gency,  according  to  their  own  fancy. 

At  Utrecht  things  were  carried  so  far  by  the  active 
spirit  of  one  Thier\'  Kanter  and  his  adherents,  that 
Count  Frederick  Henry  had  orders  to  besiege  the 
city,  which  did  not  open  its  gates,  till  the  end  of  six 
days.  Tranquillity  seemed  to  be  re-established  :  but 
Kanter  and  some  others  having  entered  into  a  con- 
spiracy  against  the  regency,  which  was  then  entirely 
composed  of  persons  attached  to  the  opinions  of  Ar- 
minius,  they  secured  their  persons,  tried  them,  and 
passed  sentence  of  death  against  all  of  them.  How- 
ever, they  changed  the  sentence  of  death  into  perpe- 
tual banishment,  and  the  loss  of  their  estates. 

In  the  interim,  the  minibtd.s  of  tlie  school  of  Ar- 
minius,  who  formed  the  smallest  number  in  Holland, 
foreseeing  that  it  would  be  difficult  for  them  to  main- 
tain tlieir  groimd  ay:a^iiist  tfie  power  of  their  adversa- 


325 

rics,  presented  a  memorial  to  the  states  of  Holland, 
in  which  they  vindicated  tliemsclves,  and  repelled 
the  reproachful  charges  that  had  been  made  against 
them,  of  wishing  to  introduce  some  change  in  reli- 
gion, and  to  excite  the  people  to  revolt.  They  there* 
in  explained  tlicir  sentiments,  which  they  reduced  to 
Ave  principal  articles.  They  concluded,  by  praying 
the  states  of  the  province,  whose  sovereign  jurisdic- 
tion in  spirituals  as  well  as  temporals,  they  declared 
themselves  to  be  satisfied  with,  to  cause  their  reasons 
to  be  heard  in  a  free,  and  legitimate  synodical  assem, 
bly  :  or  if  that  could  not  be,  to  interpose  their  authori- 
ty, in  order  that  the  two  parties  should  treat  each 
other  as  brothers ;  promising,  that  they  themselves 
would  do  all  they  could  to  preserve  peace.  Upon 
this  remonstrance,  on  account  of  which  the  Armini- 
ans  have  been  called  Remonstrants,  die  states  of  Hol- 
land resolved,  by  ordering  the  classes  of  the  province, 
that,  till  a  new  order,  they  should  not  require  any 
one » to  confess  any  other  things  than  those  contained 
in  the  five  articles  ;  enjoining  upon  them  to  use  their 
best  endeavours  to  preserve  harmony  and  peace. 
This  order  of  the  sovereign  was  so  little  respected, 
that  some  classes  declared  that  they  would  not  sub- 
mit to  it. 

In  the  spring  of  the  year  1611,  there  was  held  at 
the  Hague,  in  the  presence  of  the  states  of  Holland, 
a  conference  between  six  ministers  on  both  sides. 
The  dispute  was  confined  to  the  five  articles  propos- 
ed  by  the  Arminians.  The  states  did  not  attribute 
the  victory  to  cither  of  the  parties,  but  contented 


32G 

themselves  with  passing  the  usual  order,  to  preserve 
peace  with  each  other.  Before  the  opening  of  the 
conference,  the  Gomarists  of  Holland,  since  called 
eontra-Remonstrants,  had  presented  a  remonstrance 
to  the  states  against  the  opinions  of  the  Arminians. 
They  therein  explained,  in  seven  articles,  their  own 
sentiments  upon  grace  and  absolute  predestination ; 
which  they  admitted  purely  and  simply,  in  all  the  ri- 
gidity of  Calvin's  system.  They  proposed  also,  as  a 
sure  means  to  put  an  end  to  all  disputes,  the  holding 
of  a  national  synod,  or  to  send  the  disputed  points  to 
foreign  universities,  to  whose  decision  they  promised 
to  submit. 

The  following  are  the  five  Arminian  articles  : — 

First.  That  God  had,  from  all  eternity,  resolved  to 
elect,  and  to  call  to  eternal  life,  those  who,  by  his 
grace,  should  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  should 
persevere,  even  to  the  end,  in  faith  and  obedience ; 
and  to  reprobate  and  reject  to  eternal  damnation,  un- 
believers and  the  impenitent.  '    • 

Second.  That  Christ  died  for  all ;  in  such  a  man- 
ner, however,  that  there  were  none  except  believers, 
who  should  be  entirely  reconciled  by  his  death. 

Third.  That  man  had  not  sanctifying  grace  through 
himself,  nor  by  his  free  will ;  but  that  to  obtain  it,  he 
had  need  of  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Fourth.  That  this  grace  was  the  beginning,  tht 
progressing,  and  the  finishing  of  the  salvation  erf* 
men  ; — that  it  was  to  it  that  all  good  works  must  be 
attributed: — that,  however,  it  did  not  operate  irre- 
sistibly. 


327 

Fifth.  That  the  grace  of  God  gave  to  true  bcHcv- 
ers  strength  sufficient  to  overcome  evil ;  but  whether 
believers  could  lose  this  grace,  was  a  point  that  they 
ought  to  examine  more  ncarlr,  before  daring  to  teach 
it  with  entire  confidence. 

These  are  the  five  articles.  Some  time  after,  the 
Remonstrants  declared  their  opinions  less  equivocally, 
as  to  die  fifth  article,  by  saying,  that  a  true  believer 
might,  by  his  own  fault,  alienate  himself  entirely 
from  God,  and  lose  the  grace. 

The  question  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians, 
it  appears  to  me,  ought  to  be  this — Is  there  any  acti- 
vity in  the  creature^  supposed  or  implied  in  the  Gospel 
system  of  salvation  ? 

Calvinists  and  Arminians  have  placed  the  issue  of 
the  debate  between  them,  upon  this  ground — correct 
notions  of  liberty^  tuilly  and  volition.  I  verily  be- 
lieve, that  neither  of  the  parties  have  had  correct 
opinions  as  to  these  three  terms. 

In  the  natural  \\orld,  it  seems  to  be  generally 
agreed,  that  man  possesses  activity  ;  he  can  cultivate 
and  prepare  his  ground,  and  put  in  the  seed ;  but  he 
cannot  make  it  grow.  The  natural  man  is  always 
dependent  on  the  goodness  of  God,  notwithstanding 
he  has  a  principle  of  activity  within  himself. 

It  will,  I  presume,  be  acknowledged,  by  all  sober 
thinking  men,  who  have  considered  and  weighed  the 
extremities  of  doctrinal  points,  that  there  have  been 
extreme  Calvinists,  as  well  as  extreme  Arminians. 
There  have  been  Calvinists,  and  there  have  been  Ar- 
minians, between  whose  sentiments  it  has  been  ex- 


328 

tremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  draw  a  line. 
In  some  things  the  Calvinist  has  been  an  Arminian ; 
and  in  some  things  the  Arminian  has  been  a  Calvin- 
ist. As  there  are  grades  in  Calvinism  ;  so  there  are 
in  Arminianism.  The  Methodists  and  society  of 
Friends  arc  not  Calvinists  :  they  are  to  be  found  in 
some  of  the  grades  of  Arminianism.  Calvinism  b 
absolute,  unconditional,  simple  predestination  to 
eternal  life,  or  eternal  misery,  by  an  absolute,  uncon- 
ditional, simple  decree  of  God,  originating  from  no 
external  motives  whatever.  In  this  sense,  neither 
Quakers  nor  Methodists  are  Calvinists. 

It  is  said,  that  there  has  been  found  more  evange- 
lical piety  in  the  resorts  of  Calvinism,  than  in  those 
of  Arminianism  :  how  far  this  may  be  true,  I  am  not 
competent  to  decide.  There  is,  however,  one  thing 
that  is  extremely  dishonourable  to  Calvinism  itself: 
in  its  resort  have  been  found  blood-thirsty  perse- 
cutors. I  do  not  refer  to  Calvin  and  Servetus,  but 
to  the  history  of  Holland,  and  of  Germany,  where 
high-minded  predestinarians,  unquestionably,  if  not 
instigated  by  the  devil,  had  not  the  true  spirit  of  the 
Gospel  in  them.  In  Holland  how  much  Arminian 
blood,  merely  on  account  of  Arminianism,  has  been. 
shed  !  I  turn  my  eyes  from  the  scene  with  horror ! 
We  may  say  of  the  perpretators  of  tliese  horrid 
deeds,  as  Paul  said  of  the  Athenians,  "  Ye  men  of 
Athens,  I  perceive  that  in  all"  (these)  "  things  ye 
are  too  superstitious."  The  Arminians  never  de- 
nied tliat  the  Scriptures  were  the  word  of  God.  Such 
dr^nial  is,  unquestionably,  that  sin  against  the  Holy 


329 

Ghost,  which  will  not  be  forgiven  in  this,  nor  the 
world  to  come.  If  they  are  heretical,  they  do  not 
*'  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  denying  the  Lord  that 
bought  them."  2  Pet.  ii.  1.  "  Who  is  a  liar,  but  he 
that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ?  He  is  anti- 
christ that  denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son."  Jude  v.  4. 
For  there  arc  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  who 
-were  of  old  ordained  to  this  condemnation  ;  ungodly 
men,  turning  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness, 
and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

Rigid  C;ilvinism  admits  of  no  secret  councils  of 
God ;  it  undertakes  to  give  a  reason  for  them  all. 
See  Rom.  28th  to  the  end ;  the  33d  verse  is,  "  O 
the  depth  of  the  riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God  !  how  unsearchable  are  his  judg- 
ments, and  his  ways  past  finding  out."  Ctilvinism 
knows  the  depth  of  the  riches  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God ;  and  Arminianism  pretends  to 
know  the  same  ;  but  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  of 
them  can  fathom  the  depth. 

The  sinner  truly  humbled,  never  stops  to  inquire 
about  his  own  activity :  he  cheerfully  and  correctly 
gives  all  the  glory  to  God.  If  the  Calvinist  were 
really  more  righteous  than  his  neighbour — more  ac- 
tive in  holy  exercises  than  the  Arminian,  I  should  be 
tempted  to  say,  in  the  language  of  our  Saviour,  Matt. 
jtxi.  28.  "  But  what  think  ye  ?  A  certain  man  had 
two  sons :  and  he  came  to  the  first,  and  said.  Son, 
go  this  day  and  work  in  my  vineyard.     He  answer- 

2lt 


330 

cd,  and  said,  I  will  not :  but  afterwards  he  repented, 
and  went.  And  he  came  to  the  second,  and  said 
likewise.  And  he  answered,  and  said,  I  go.  Sir, 
but  went  not."  Now,  if  what  the  Calvinist  says  be 
true,  that  in  the  resorts  of  Calvinism,  more  piety 
and  evangelical  holiness  are  found,  than  in  the  resorts 
of  Arminianism,  I  would  allegorize  as  follows : — 
The  Calvinist  says  he  cannot  go,  but  he  repents  and 
goes  ; — the  Arminian  says  that  he  can  go ;  he  is  in- 
excusable, therefore,  if  he  does  not  go.  Some  Cal- 
viiiists,  not  all,  say  that  he  does  not  go.  A  very  em- 
inent Calvinist  divine,  in  my  hearing,  not  long  since, 
said  in  the  pulpit,  I  will  not  say,  "  that  no  Arminian 
can  be  saved,"  or  words  to  this  effect.  A  question 
immediately  arose  in  my  mind,  can  this  worthy  di- 
vine draw  the  line  precisely,  so  that  a  Calvinist  and  an 
Arminian  may  be  accurately  distinguished,  the  one 
from  the  other  ?  I  have  heard  professed  Arminian  di- 
vines fervently  and  animatedly  inculcate  the  doc- 
trine of  the  mere,  pure,  simple,  grace  of  God,  in  the 
salvation  of  any  one  or  more  sinners. 

God  only  knows  the  feebleness  of  my  intellect ;  it 
is  what  he  has  given  me  ;  and  feeble  as  it  is,  1  thank 
him  for  it,  and  should  be  ashamed  to  ask  his  forgive- 
ness for  not  having  given  me  a  more  comprehensive 
mind.  I  lay  no  claim  to  perfect  correctness  of  ideas, 
in  building  upon  the  foundation,  Jesus  Christ.  I 
only  propose  my  ideas  for  consideration,  having  no 
desire  to  make  proselytes.  If  they  do  not  harmonize 
with  the  reason  of  others,  I  surely  shall  not  com- 
plain.     If  others    reason  coolly  and  deliberately 


331 

against  me,  I  will  thank  them  for  it.  If  they  rail,  I 
will  only  say,  in  the  words  of  Judc,  "  Yet  Michael, 
the  archangel,  when  contending  with  the  devil,  (he 
disputed  about  tlie  body  of  Moses,)  durst  not  bring 
against  him  a  railing  accusation,  but  said,  tlie  Lord 
rebuke  thee." 

I  do  verily  believe,  that  every  one  who  can  read, 
and  has  a  bible,  has  a  talent ;  and  if  he  does  not 
righdy  improve  it,  he  will  be  justly  condemned ;  if 
he  does  not  hear  the  Spirit  immediately  speaking  to 
him  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  if  one  should  arise  from 
the  dead,  he  would  not  hear  him. 

Peter  says.  Acts  iv.  28.  **  For  to  do  whatsoever 
thy  hand  and  thy  council  had  determined  before  to 
be  done."  The  translation  might  have  been,  "  For 
to  do  whatsoever  thy  power  and  thy  will  had  deter- 
mined before  to  be  done."  The  event  referred  to  is, 
the  death  of  Christ,  in  which  die  power  and  the  will 
of  God  were  most  graciously  displayed  ;  not  to  the 
murderous  act  of  those  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
verse — "  For,  of  a  truth,  against  thy  holy  child  Je- 
sus, whom  thou  hast  anointed,  both  Herod  and  Pon- 
tius Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles,  and  the  people  of  Is- 
rael, were  gathered  together."  Ps.  xl.  8.  "  I  de- 
light to  do  thy  -willy  O  my  God."  Paul  applies  these 
words  to  Christ,  Heb.  x.  7.  "  Then  said  I,  lo,  I 
come  !  in  the  volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  of 
me,  to  do  thy  will,  O  God."  It  was  God's  good 
will  and  pleasure,  that  Christ  should  die  ;  but  he  as- 
sures us,  that  he  takes  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  a 
sinner.     Therefore,  to  infer,  from  the  predetermina- 


33^ 

tion  of  what  was  to  be  done  to  Christ,  a  predetermi- 
nation that  sin  should  exist,  would  be  manifestly  an 
incorrect  inference.  To  bring  a  clean,  out  of  an  un- 
clean thing,  is  the  mysterious  work  of  God  :  but  to 
bring  an  unclean,  out  of  a  clean  thing,  is  not  the 
work  of  God  at  all. 

"  Non  decreverat  Deus  fieri  peccatum  illorum, 
sed  mortem  filii  sui.  Decrevit  quod  haec  fierent, 
non  quod  Judaei  haec  facerent :  hoc  enim,  duntaxat 
praevidit."  Acts  iv,  28.  Pol.  Syn.  I  believe  that 
Christ  died  for  all  the  human  race,  because  the  Scrip- 
tures expressly  assert  that  there  will  be  some  who 
will  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them.  If  Christ 
died  for  open  and  professed  infidels — if  Christ,  by 
his  death,  bought  them  ;  then  it  follows,  that  he  died 
for  those  who  do  not  openly  and  professedly  deny 
the  Lord  that  bought  them  ;  who  make  profession  of 
faith  with  the  mouth,  and  not  with  the  heart — ^the 
words  of  the  mouth,  and  the  meditations  of  the  heart, 
not  corresponding  with  each  other.  Then  it  follows, 
that  he  died  for  all  that  never  heard  of  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  who  never  denied  the  Lord  that 
bought  them. 

These  three  classes  must  embrace  all ;  that  is,  the 
bold  denier  of  ti'uths  plainly  and  clearly  represented 
to  him  as  trutlis  ;  the  hypocritical  professor  of  prais- 
ing God  with  a  '*  solemn  sound  upon  a  thouglitless 
tongue ;''  and  those  who,  without  God's  revealed 
will,  have  a  faint  knowledge  of  him  by  his  visible 
works. 

I  believe  in  universal,  in  opposition  to  particular 


333 

redemption,  (not  in  universal  application,)  because 
the  most  profound  ol'  all  Paul's  Epistles,  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans,  plainly  and  decidedly  teaches  us 
the  doctrine  of  universal  redemption.  This,  the  in- 
comparable Locke,  in  his  paraphrase,  has  made  so 
evident  to  me,  that  I  should  deny  first  principles,  if 
I  denied  it.  I  say,  "  not  in  universal  application,^^ 
because  Paul  forbids  the  idea  of  universal  applica- 
tion ;  and  Locke  so  construes  what  he  says.  I 
would  refer  the  reader  to  the  whole  epistle,  more  es- 
pecially to  the  tenth  chapter,  and  Locke*s  critical  pa- 
raphrase on  the  same. 

The  ablest  and  best  Calvinistic  divines,  even  those 
that  are  strenuous  for  particular,  against  universal  re- 
demption, do  frequently  assert,  from  the  pulpit,  that 
no  person  was  ever  forced  into  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven ;  that  God  does  not  treat  men  as  mere  machines ; 
to  suppose  such  a  thing  would  be  absurd ;  no  person 
was  ever  saved  but  willingly ;  no  person  was  ever 
lest,  but  by  his  own  obstinacy.  How  to  reconcile 
this  with  the  opinion  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  all ; 
that  he  made  satisfaction  to  the  divine  law  and  jus- 
tice for  A  and  B,  but  not  for  C  and  D,  is  beyond  my 
powers  of  apprehension  ;  that  is,  complete  and  full 
atonement  has  not  been  made  to  the  divine  law.  If 
it  be  granted,  that  Christ  died  for  all,  it  will  not  from 
this  follow,  that  all  will  be  saved.  1  John  ii.  2. 
'*  And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins ;  and  not 
for  ours  only ;  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
Tivorld."  The  holy  and  spiritual  law  which  man 
transgressed,  is  one  indivisible  thing ;  it  has  not  two 


parts  to  it,  so  that  one  part  might  be  satisfied  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  other  part  remain  un- 
satisfied. The  question  is  not,  how  many  will  be 
saved  ?  but,  has  the  law  been  fully  satisfied  for  man's 
breach  of  it,  by  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood  ?  All 
mankind  will  not  be  saved ;  therefore,  Christ  did  not 
die  for  all  mankind,  is  a  mere  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  same  is  the  case  with  the  following  argu- 
ment : — All  that  Christ  died  for  will  be  saved ;  but 
Christ  died  for  all  mankind ;  therefore  all  will  be 
saved. 

Paul  establishes  the  fact  of  universal  redemption, 
ly^,ffXiulJl^^^^  of  practical  application  only,  Heb  x.  29.  "  Of 
how  much  sorer  punishment,  suppose  ye,  shall  he  be 
thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the 
Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  co- 
venant, wherewith  he  was  sanctijied  an  unholy  thing, 
and  hath  done  despite  unto  the  spirit  of  grace."  1 
C.  viii.  11.  "  And  through  thy  knowledge  shall  the 
weak  brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ  died."  Now, 
he  that  makes  the  foundation  of  his  argument  for 
particular  redemption  only,  particular  application, 
expressly  contradicts  the  above  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture :  he  follows  his  own  feeble  reason,  and  pays  no 
attention  to  what  the  Scriptures  say. 

The  following  passage  is  exti-acted  from  the  se- 
cond President  Edwards'  Sermon,  delivered  at  the 
ordination  of  Mr.  Brown,  not  on  account  of  any  sin- 
gular perspicuity  in  it. 

*'  Does  saving  faith  imply  either  a  belief,  that 
Christ  died  for  him  in  particular,  who  is  the  subject 


Olil 


of  the  faith,  or  a  belief  tliat  he  died  for  all  men,  in 
such  a  sense  at  least,  that  he  has  made  atonement  for 
all  ?  It  is  said  by  some,  that  there  is  no  foundation 
for  me  to  exercise  faith  in  Christ,  but  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  :  a  belief  that  Christ  died  for  me  in 
particular,  and  made  atonement  for  my  sins  in  parti- 
cular ;  or  a  belief  that  he  hath  made  sufficient  atone- 
ment for  all  mankind  ;  that  if  I  believe  that  he  died 
for  me  in  particular,  I  have  a  foundation  on  which  to 
trust  in  him  :  or  if  I  believe  that  he  hath  made  an 
atonement  sufficient  for  all  men,  I  still  have  a  foun- 
dation on  which  I  may  trust  in  him  for  salvation : 
but  that  beside  these  two,  there  is  no  other  founda- 
tion for  faith  or  trust  in  him  :  that  therefore  all  those 
who  believe  that  Christ  hath  made  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  the  elect  only,  must  have  the  appropriating 
faith,  or  a  faith  which  consists  in  believing  that  Christ 
died  for  them  in  particular. 

*'  Concerning  all  this,  I  beg  leave  to  observe,  that  if 
by  saving  faith  we  mean  a  trust  or  reliance  on  Christ, 
in  the  persuasion,  that  /le  will  save  us,  it  must  imply 
either  a  belief  that  he  died  for  us  in  particular,  or  a 
belief  that  he  died,  and  hath  made  atonement  for  all 
men.  But  if  by  saving  faith  we  mean,  as  I  conceive 
that  we  ought  to  mean,  a  firm  belief  of  the  report 
and  doctrine  of  the  Gospel;  and  a  firm  belief  of  the 
character,  offices,  and  sufficiency  of  Jesus  Christ,  as 
a  Saviour  ;  and  a  cordial  complacency  in  him  ;  and  a 
willing  acquiescence  in  the  way  of  salvation  through 
him ;  saving  faith  may  exist  in  a  man,  who  believes 


336 

neither  that  Christ  died  for  him  in  particular,  nor  that 
he  has  made  atonement  sufficient  for  all  men." 

Saving  faith  may  exist  in  one  who  does  not  be- 
lieve that  Christ  died  for  him  in  particular,  and  that 
he  has  not  made  atonement  sufficient  for  all  men.  Is 
saving  faith  then  mere  chance,  mere  contingency  ? 
The  question,  For  what  individual  did  Christ  die  ? 
carries  its  own  absurdity  with  it.  He  did  not  die 
for  A,  B,  and  C.  He  died  to  make  complete  repara- 
tion for  the  breach  of  the  divine  law  of  justice.- 
Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness.  The 
seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head. 
As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made 
filive  ;  that  is,  all  shall  again  be  placed  in  a  salvable 
state,  on  a  higher  grade  than  Adam  was  placed. 
Adam,  in  his  state  of  innocency,  transgressed :  so 
also  do  they  who  tread  under  foot  the  Son  of  God, 
and  count  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith  they 
were  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing,  and  do  despite  to 
the  spirit  of  grace.  The  foundation  is  grace :  the 
superstructure  has  no  other  foundation  than  grace. 
Have  sincere  Christians  any  merits  of  debt  ?  If  the 
reader  can  have  access  to  three  sermons  of  Johri 
Smally,  pastor  of  a  Church  in  Berlin,  in  Connecti- 
eut,  pubhshed  1785,  1786,  1787,  he  will  find  the 
subject  of  free  grace,  from  beginning  to  end,  handled 
in  a  manner  rather  curious.  I  understand  that  this 
Rev.  gentleman  has  a  very  high  character  among 
Calvinistic  divines  in  Connecticut :  he  seems,  how- 
ever, to  be  a  great  opposer  of  imputed  righteousness. 


337 

He  says,  "  Merit  is  ever  personal ;  in  the  nature  of 
things  it  cannot  be  otherwise.''  This  sentence  agrees 
precisely  with  what  Paine  says  in  his  Age  of  Reason. 
Mr.  Smally  says,  that  "  another's  having  been  rigli- 
teous,  doth  not  make  me  righteous,  if  I  have  not 
been  so  myself;  nor  can  the  sufferings  of  another 
make  me  faultless,  wherein  I  have  been  a  sinner."  It 
appears  to  me,  that  the  New  Testament  exhibits  to 
us  clearly  and  plainly,  a  very  different  doctrine. 

Mr.  Smally  discards  what  the  first  president  Ed- 
wards says,  in  the  first  set  of  his  posthumous  ser- 
mons, which  is  as  follows  : — "  Salvation  is  an  abso- 
lute debt  to  the  believer  from  God,  so  that  he  may 
in  justice  demand  and  challenge  it,  not  upon  the  ac- 
count of  what  he  himself  has  done,  but  upon  the  ac- 
count of  what  his  surety  has  done."  He  says,  tliat 
"  Mr.  Thomas  Hooker,  the  first  minister  of  Hart- 
ford, carries  the  matter  still  further,  as  to  'debt.'  " 

Mr.  Smally  says,  "  Christ  is  not  so  the  end  of 
the  law,  but  tliat  personal  righteousness  is  still  ne- 
cessary, in  order  to  eternal  life.  Not  only  is  perfect 
obedience  as  much  our  duty  as  ever."-  The  Antino- 
mian  says,  that  he  has  been  justified  from  all  eternity, 
and  that  he  cannot  commit  any  deadly  sin. 

The  pious  Mr.  Baxter  says,  that  the  Antinomians 
in  his  day,  that  had  adopted  the  idea  that  they  were 
justified  from  all  eternity,  fell  into  the  most  grievous 
sins. 

As  to  imputed  righteousness,  I  think  Locke  much 
more  correct  th^  Mr.  Smally. 

2  s 


538 

In  a  note  to  his  paraphrase  on  Romans  iv.  8.  he 
"Says,  :>toy»<rflT«*  rcckoneth.  What  this  imputing,  or 
r-eckoning  of  righteousness  is,  may  be  seen  v.  8.  viz. 
the  not  reckoning  sin  to  any  one  ;  the  not  putting  of 
sill  to  his  account — the  apostle,  in  these  two  versesy 
using  these  two  expressions  as  equivalent.  From 
hence  tlie  expression  of  blotting  out  iniquity,  so  fre- 
quently used  in  sacrecl  Scripture, may  be  understood? 
that  is,  the  striking  it  out  of  the  account.  A»y»o-£(76ai  sig- 
nifies to  reckon,  or  account ;  and  with  a  dative  case, 
to  put  to  any  one's  account :  and  accordingly,  v.  3, 
4,  5,  it  is  translated  counted,  reckoned,  which,  for 
the  sake  of  the  English  reader,  I  have  kept  in  this 
and  V.  9,  10,  11.  What  righteousness,  reckoned  to 
3Tiy  one,  or  as  it  is  generally  called,  imputed  right- 
eousness is,  St.  Paul  explains,  v.  6.  8.*' 

It  may  be  supposed,  from  what  I  have  said,  I  am 
writing  against  Calvinism.  Ai  Calvinism  and  fatal- 
ism be  precisely  the  same  thing,  I  do,  indeed,  set  my 
face  against  it.  But  I  know  that  very  many  that 
have  l^een  esteemed  Calvinists,  have  discarded  the 
idea  of  fatalism  with  abhorrence.  Many  learned  and 
pious  Christians  have  supposed,  that  Edwards,  in  his 
treatise  on  the  will,  lays  a  foundation  for  fatalism*; 
and  that  the  rigid  Hopkinsians  have  done  no  more, 
than  to  carry  his  system  to  such  a  length,  as  his  pre- 
mises fairly  warrant. 

If  the  Arminian  think,  that  by  the  freedom  of  the 
v.'ill  a  man  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean 
thing,  I  reject  it  with  abhorrence.  But  if  the  idea 
meant  to  be  com  eyed  by  the  terms  "  freedom  of 


359 

will,''  be,  that  man  may  accept  of  a  free  gift  witliout 
meriting  it,  I  have  no  objection  to  tlie  idea.  And 
further :  If  he  does  not  fieely  and  cheerfully  accept 
of  the  gift,  he  is  justly  answerable  to  all  the  pains 
and  penalties  annexed  to  his  non-acceptance  of  it. 

I  have  said  that  I  do  not  know  precisely  what  the 
terms  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  mean :  and  per- 
haps from  this  some  would  infer,  that  I  have  no  fixed 
religious  opinions.  Good  old  Calvinism,  such  as  we 
find  in  Watts  and  Dodridi^e,  I  have  always  admired: 
and  in  proof  of  what  I  say,  I  do  recommend  Mar- 
shall's Gospel  Mystery  of  Sanctificatiouy  as  the  short- 
est and  best  compendium  of  Gospel  truths,  that  \ 
know  of.  There  may  be  some  metaphysical  expres- 
sions in  it,  which  to  some  may  be  objectionable. 
The  work,  however^  contains  many  solemn  Gospel 
truths,  and  is,  as  a  human  composition,  calculated  to 
do  much  good. 

Harvey's  Theron  and  Aspasia  is  milk  for  babes, 
containing  flowers  in  the  midst  of  diomy  metaphy- 
sics; Marshall's  Gospel  Mystery  of  Sanctification, 
to  speak  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  Heb.  v.  14.  *'  but 
strong  meat  belongeth  to  them  that  are  of  full  agc^ 
even  those  who  by  reason  of  use  have  their  senses  ex- 
ercised to  discern  both  good  and  evil ;''  such  is  Mar- 
shall's  Mystery. 

In  the  form  of  government  of  the  Presb}'tcrian 
Church,  chap.  12.  before  ruling  elders  and  deacons 
may  be  ordained,  they  must  answer  four  questions  to 
be  put  to  them,  in  the  affirmati^'c  To  three  of  th^r« 
there  can  be  no  objection. 


•340 

The  first  is,  *'  Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  word  of  God,  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?" 

The  second  is,  "  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and 
adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures?" 

The  Confession  of  Faith  is  a  human  composition. 
The  first  ai'ticle  says,  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  in- 
fallible rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  second  arti- 
cle makes  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  infallible  a  rule 
of  faith  as  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  tM'^o  articles 
appear  to  me  to  be  at  variance  with  each  other.  I 
have  known  several  gentlemen  elected  elders,  who 
positively  refused  to  accept  of  the  office,  unless  the 
second  question  were  put  to  them  in  some  such  form 
as  follows : — "  Do  you  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  con- 
taining, generally,  an  excellent  summary  of  the  doc- 
trines taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?"  I  presume 
that  ministers  have,  and  I  know  elders  have,  been  or- 
dained, the  second  article  being  qualified  so  as  not  to 
place  the  Confession  of  Faith  upon  grounds  as  infal- 
lible as  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

My  dear  and  Rev.  Sir,  I  trust  that  you  will  per- 
ceive that  one  of  my  objects  has  been  to  establish, 
not  by  my  words  and  reason  only,  but  by  the  expli- 
cit words  of  God  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  God 
is  not,  in  any  active  way  whatever,  the  author  of  sin. 
He  ne>er  made  an  intelligent  creature  for  the  express 


341 

purpose  of  dooming  that  creature  to  exist  in  inter- 
minable misery,  for  the  good  of  his  universal  govern- 
ment. What  may  be  for  the  good  of  God's  universe, 
man  knows  not ;  and  we  ought  to  be  extremely  care- 
ful, not  from  assumed  principles  to  make  any  infer- 
ence respecting  it.  Some  have  been  bold  enough  to 
say  that  we  ought  to  be  willing  to  suffer  eternal  tor- 
ments for  the  good  of  the  universe ;  and  they  ground 
the  opinion  on  Rom.  ix.  3.  "  For  I  could  wish  that 
myself  were  accursed  from  Christ  for  my  brethren, 
my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  ^vho  are  Israelites 
indeed." 

1.  "  I  could  wish."  Some  have  supposed  that 
Paul  has  reference  to  the  time  before  his  conversion. 
When  I  was  an  enemy  to  Christy  "  I  could -wish  to  be 
separated  from  Christ.^'* — Pole's  Synopsis  is  against 
this  idea.  And  it  appears  to  me,  that  Paul,  a  bitter 
enemy  of  Jesus  Christ,  could  not  say,  "  I  could 
wish  that  '..^self  were  accursed  from  Christ,"  &c. 
whilst  he  looked  upon  Jesus  to  be  a  vile  impostor. 
Could  Paul  wish  to  be  separated  from  Christ,  before 
he  was  joined  to  him  ?  The  idea  appears  to  me  to  be 
evidently  incorrect.  /,  Paul^  hadjhrmerly  wished  to 
be  separated  from  Christ  for  my  brethren^  Sec.  Paul, 
in  his  converted  state,  had  continual  heaviness  of 
heart,  and  sorrow  for  his  brethren ;  he  had  strong 
and  anxious  desires  for  their  future  happiness :  in 
this  state  he  says  he  could  have  wished  for  something 
that  might  hare  been  a  benefit  to  his  brediren. 

2.  AVhat  was  it  that  Paul  could  have  wished  for, 


342 

that  thereby  he  might  have  benefitted  his  brethren  V 
1  answer,  that  the  Greek  word  «>«9Eii^4  or  avatfin/iiot,  ad- 
mits of  several  meanings  distinctly  different.  In 
Demosthenes,  if  I  remember  rightly,  it  signifies  a 
trophy  taken  from  an  enemy,  and  hung  up  in  the 
temples  of  the  Gods.  Hedericus  gives  four  mean-, 
ings  to  the  word.  1.  Execratio.  2.  Seperatio,  aliena- 
tio.  3.  Segregatio  a  communi  usu  ad  usum  Sac- 
rum. 

The  third  meaning  is  a  separation  from  a  common 
xise  to  a  sacred  use.  And  this  is  the  meaning  tliat 
may  with  propriety  be  given  to  the  word  as  used  by 
St.  Paul :  and  his  argument  I  take  to  be  as  follows. 
To  Peter  was  expressly  committed  the  Gospel  of 
circumcision,  and  to  Paul  the  Gospel  of  uncir- 
cumcision,  as  we  find  in  Gal.  ii.  7.  "  When  they 
saw  that  the  Gospel  of  uncircumcision  was  committed 
to  me,  as  the  Gospel  of  circumcision  was  to  Peter : 
for  he  that  wrought  effectually  in  Peter,  to  the  apos- 
tleship  of  the  circumcision,  the  same  was  mighty  in 
me  towards  the  Gentiles." 

The  converted,  more  especially  the  unconverted 
Jews,  were  Paul's  most  bitter  enemies.  He  gives  un- 
answerable reasons  why  they  should  not  be  so.  Now, 
the  following  appears  to  me  to  be  the  construction 
we  ought  to  give  to  Rom.  ix.  3.  "  For  I  could  wish 
that  myself  were,  (or  had  been,)  set  apart  by  Christ 
for  my  brethren,  my  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh, 
who  are  Israelites  indeed."  But  God  himself  order- 
ed it  othervvise. 


343 

Both  Peter  and  Piiul  were  set  apart  to  very  painful 
offices,  which  subjected  them  to  persecutions,  and 
finally  to  crucifixion.  Paul  says.  Col.  i.  23,  24. 
"  If  ye  continue  in  the  faith,  grounded  and  settled, 
and  be  not  moved  away  from  the  hope  of  the  Gos- 
pel which  ye  have  heard,  and  which  was  proclaimed 
to  every  creature  which  is  under  heaven,  whereof  I, 
Panl,  am  made  a  minister;  who  now  rejoice  in  my 
sufferings  for  you,  and  fill  up  that  which  is  behind  of 
the  afflictions  of  Christ  in  my  flesh,  for  his  bodies' 
sake,  which  is  the  Church." 

2  Cor.  V.  21.  "  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin 
for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him." 

Gal.  iii.  13.  "  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us."  Christ 
was  made  an  ccm9(fM. 

I  am  very  doubtful,  as  to  the  correctness  of  the 
translation  of  Col.  i.  23.  And  I  submit  it  to  the 
learned,  whether  the  following  would  not  be  more 
correct.  "  If  ye  continue  in  the  faith,  grounded 
and  settled,  and  be  not  moved  away  from  the  hope  of 
the  Gospel,  which,  (or  of  which,)  ye  have  heard,  it 
being,  or  having  been,  proclaimed  for  every  crea- 
ture, which  is  under  heaven ;"  that  is,  for  all  the  hu- 
man race. 

Another  object  that  I  have  had  in  view  has  been, 
*to  show,  that  let  the  will  be  as  free  as  it  ma}',  the  pos- 
sessor of  it  cannot  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an 


544 
unclean  thing :  and  that  to  be  a  sincere  Christian, 
requires  the  full  exercise  of  the  three  modes  of  think- 
ing which  we  experience  within  ourselves ;  that  is, 
perception  of  the  object,  choice  of  the  object,  and  a 
fixed  determination,  which  I  call  the  will,  to  acquire 
the  object. 

Permit  me  to  request  you  to  read  the  foregoing 
observations  with  candour,  and  to  point  out  to  me 
the  errors  that  I  may  have  fallen  into ;  and  if  ever  I 
should  have  an  opportunity,  they  shall  be  corrected. 
I  am,  dear  and  Rev.  Sir, 
Very  respectfully. 

Your  most  obdt.  servant, 

SAMUEL  OSGOOD. 


ERRATA. 

rage  44,  line  1,  instead  of  fcr  days,  read  for  mnny  dsyt- 
rt2,  line  S  ftroin  top,  iiistead  of  antitype,  read  type, 
82,  last  line— So,  ist  and  fith  lines,  instead  of  370,  read  313. 

lee,  line  15  from  top,  instead  of  2SC0,  read  2300, 

r.95,  line  6  from  top,  instead  of  tlduvijn,  read  diluvian. 

309   line  4  from  top,  instead  oteffectnall,  read  effecttinlly. 

"27.  line  5  from  bottom,  instead  cf  Vortiui,  rt-ad  Vorstius. 

"  5 !,  Iltte  18  from  top,  instead  o£ practiail,  KsA  pttrticvUiT, 


•.7INIS. 


APPENDIX. 


J_  F  there  be  any  saints,  chosen  elect  of  God,  among  the 
Relbrmetl  divines,  1  have  no  doubt  that  tlic  late  Di'.  \V  att* 
is  not  only  one,  but  one  of  them  of  a  distinguished  grade. 
In  seveial  things  I  cannot  agree  with  Dr.  Watts  in  opin- 
ion, as  to  speculative  matters.  In  essentials,  i  believe  he 
was  not  only  a  correct  divine,  an  excellent  scholar,  posses- 
sed of  no  ordinary  abilities,  and  singularly  amiable  and 
charitable.  In  order  further  to  elucidate  my  views  of  re- 
deeming love,  I  will  introduce  Dr.  Watts'  thirteenth  ques- 
tion on  the  ruin  and  recovery  of  mankind. 

Quest.  13.  "  How  far  has  the  glorious  undertaking  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  provided  any  hope  of  salvation  for 
those  who  were  not  eternally  chosen,  and  given  into  the 
bands  of  Christ,  to  be  redeemed  and  saved  ?" 

He  says,  "  The  inquiiy  is  not,  whether  any  of  them  who 
are  not  originally  chosen  of  God,  shall  be  finally  saved. 
The  event,  though  it  be  known  to  God,  yet  it  is  left  to  be 
determined  by  their  own  choice,  or  refusal  of  salvation. 
God  himself  has  put  no  effectual  and  insurmountable  bar;, 
or  rather  no  bar  at  all,  in  their  way,  to  prevent  their  ac- 
ceptance of  his  grace.  His  choosing  other  persons  who 
were  fellow-sinners,  to  make  them  certain  partakers  of  this 
grace,  is  no  hinderance  to  those  who  were  not  chosen  from 
accepting  the  same.  It  is  my  opinion,  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  general  sufficiency  of  pardon,  grace,  and  happi- 
ness, provided  for  all  mankind  by  Jesus  Christ;  and  it  is 
left  to  their  own  natural  powers,  under  common  helps,  to 
accept  or  refuse  it.  That  there  is  such  a  conditional  sal- 
ration,  and  such  real  offers  of  eternal  life  procured  by  th<" 


346 

overflowing  meiit  of  Christ,  I  think  may  be  proved  by 
these  following  considerations. 

1.  It  is  very  hard  to  vindicate  the  sincerity  of  the  blessed 
God,  or  his  Son,  in  their  universal  offers  of  grace  and  sal- 
vation to  men,  and  their  sending  ministers  with  such  mes- 
sages and  invitations  to  accept  of  mercy,  if  there  be  no 
such  a  conditional  pardon  and  salvation  provided  for  them. 
It  is  granted,  that  the  ministers  who  are  sent  to  preach  this 
Gospel,  and  offer  this  grace  of  salvation  to  the  non-elect, 
may  be  very  sincere  in  their  ministry  ;  for  they  know  not 
whom  God  hath  chosen,  and  for  whom  he  hath  provided 
this   special  grace  ;  and  therefore  they  offer  it  to  all  per- 
sons, according   to  their  general  commission.  Mark  xvi. 
15.  *'  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to 
every  creature."     But  how  can  God  or  Christ  be  sincere  in 
sending  their  ministers  with  this  commission,  to  offer  this 
grace  to  all  men,  if  they  know  that  God  has  never  provid- 
ed such  grace  or  salvation  for  any  but  the  elect ;  no,  not 
so  much  as  conditionally  ? 

It  is  hard  to  suppose,  that  the  great  God,  who  is  trath 
itself,  and  sincere  and  faithful  in  all  his  dealings,  should 
call  upon  dying  men  to  trust  in  a  Saviour  for  eternal  life, 
when  this  Saviour  has  not  eternal  life  intrusted  with  him  to 
give  them,  if  they  do  repent :  it  is  hard  to  conceive  how 
the  great  Governor  of  the  world  can  be  sincere  in  inviting 
and  requiring  sinners,  who  are  on  the  brink  of  hell,  to 
cast  themselves  upon  an  empty  word  of  invitation,  a  mere 
shadow  and  appearance  of  support,  if  there  be  nothing  real 
to  bear  them  up  from  those  depths  of  destruction — nothing 
but  mere  words  and  emj)ty  invitations.     Can  we  think  that 
the  righteous  and  holy  God  would  encourage  his  ministers 
to  call  them  to  lean  and  rest  the  weight  of  their  immortal 
concerns  and  happiness  upon  a  Gospel,  a  covenant  of 
grace,  a  Mediator,  and  his  merit  and  righteousness,  &c.  all 
which  are  a  mere  nothing  with  regard  to  them,  a  heap  of 
empty  names,  an  unsupporting  void,  which  cannot  uphold 
them  I  When  olir  blessed  Redeemer  charges  the  Jews  with 


347 

aggravated  guilt  for  refusing  his  grace,  can  we  suppose  he 
had  no  such  grace  in  ills  hand  to  offer  them  ?  or  when  he, 
as  it  were,  consigns  them  over  to  death,  because,  says  he. 
Ye  will  not  come  unto  mc  that  ye  moi/  have  life,  John  v. 
40.  can  we  suppose  he  has  no  eternal  life,  not  so  much  as 
a  conditional  griuit  of  it  in  his  hands  for  them  ? 

By  the  way,  1  cannot  but  take  notice  here,  that  in  order 
to  avoid  these  hard  and  absurd  consequences  of  the  calls  of 
grace,  and  offers  of  salvation  wiiere  none  is  really  provided, 
some  persons  choose  rather  roundly  to  assert,  there  are  no 
calls  of  grace,  no  offers  of  pardon  or  salvation  at  all  in  tht^ 
■Word  of  God  to  any  but  the  elect :  and,  1  think,  of  the 
two,  that  it  is  the  most  defensible  or  consistent  doctrine, 
though  it  seems  to  run  counter  to  a  great  many  plain 
scriptures  in  the  old  testament  and  the  new  :  for  there  are 
many  texts  wherein  pardon  and  salvation  are  proposed  to 
all  sinners  whatsoever,  without  any  regard,  whether  they  ai=e 
chosen  of  God  or  no :  And  it  is  the  design  and  voice  of  the 
whole  current  of  Scripture,  to  call  sinners  to  repentance  by 
promises  of  mercy,  and  to  enforce  that  which  Isaiah  speaks, 
c.  xl.  6,  7.  "  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found  : 
call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near :  let  the  wicked  forsake 
his  way  ;  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts  :  let  him 
return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him,  and 
to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon."  And  what 
our  Lord  himself  pronounces  in  his  personal  ministry  has 
the  same  design,  when  he  calls  to  all  the  sinners  in  Gali- 
lee, "  Repent  and  believe  the  Gospel,  for  I  come  not  to  call 
the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance,"  Mark  ii.  17. 

And  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  his  two  messengers  or  apos- 
tles, call  all  the  crucifiers  of  Christ  in  general,  and  the 
heathen  nations,  to  repent  and  be  converted,  that  their  sins 
might  be  blotted  out ;  and  to  believe  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  that  they  may  be  saved.  Acts  iii.  ly,  and  xiii. 
38,  and  xvii.  30.  He  commands  all  men  erery  zi/here  to 
repent,  Rom.  x.  11.  13.  while  our  Saviour  most  expressly 
informs  us,  Matt,  xxii,  14.  that  many  ari;  cuUea,  but  jew 


548 

are  chosen.  Yet,  I  think,  we  must  cancel  all  these  Sciipturea, 
and  deny  all  offers  of  grace  and  salvation  made  to  sinners 
in  general,  if  Christ  procured  nothing  for  them  :  or  we 
must  grant  that  there  is  a  conditional  salvation  provided  for 
all  mankind,  in  order  to  justify  the  sincerity  of  God  and 
his  Son,  in  the  public  call  and  general  invitation  given  to 
sinners  to  repent  and  accept  of  salvation. 

2.  It  is  very  hard  to  defend  the  sincerity  of  God,  in 
awakening  the  consciences  of  these  persons  sometimes, 
who  are  not  elected,  and  stirring  them  up  to  think  of  re- 
ceivmg  the  salvation  of  Christ  upon  the  terms  of  the  Gos- 
pel, if  there  be  no  such  salvation  conditionally  provided 
for  them  to  receive :  it  is  hard  to  suppose  that  God  should 
send  his  own  Spirit  to  excite  the  consciences  of  such  sin- 
ners, in  any  common  degrees,  to  any  repentings  for  sin, 
even  in  the  most  legal  sense,  and  to  bring  them  near  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  in  the  beginnings  of  conviction  and 
sorrow,  if  there  was  no  pardon  provided  in  any  sense  for 
those  who  are  not  chosen,  whether  they  repeat  or  no  :  or 
that  the  Spirit  should  give  them  any,  even  the  weakest  ex- 
citations, to  trust  in  the  merit  of  a  Saviour,  if  that  merit 
has  obtained  no  blessing  for  them,  not  so  much  as  condi- 
tional Shall  it  be  ever  said,  that  God  the  Father,  and  his 
Son  and  Spirit,  have  each  done  their  parts  to  encourage  and 
excite  non-elect  sinners  to  trust  in  the  Gospel  for  salvation, 
or  the  least  grace  or  salvation  in  a  conditional  sense  pro- 
vided for  them  to  trust  in,  or  accept  of? 

3.  It  IS  equally  difficult  to  vindicate  the  equity  of  God, 
as  the  judge  of  all  men,  in  condemning  unbelievers,  and 
punishing  them  eternally,  for  not  accepting  the  offers  of 
pardon,  if  there  was  not  so  much  as  a  conditional  pardon 
provided  for  them ;  and  for  not  resting  on  the  merit  of 
Christ,  and  receiving  his  salvation,  when  there  was  no  such 
Uieiit  appointed  for  them  to  rest  upon,  nor  any  such  salva- 
tion for  them  to  receive.  Surely  it  will  appear  in  the  day 
ot  judgment,  that  the  final  condemnation  of  sinners,  and 
then*  eternal  misery,  was  merely  the  iiuit  of  their  own 


349 

Begligenee  and  disobedience  to  the  voice  of  the  Gospel, 
and  letusiiig  the  oflered  grucc^  and  not  to  any  real  want  of 
surticient  provision  made  tor  theui  by  liiiu  who  calls  them 
to  receive  it.  The  language  of  Christ  in  his  ministry  to 
sinners  is,  Come  to  this  feast  of  the  Gospel,  for  all  things 
are  ready.  Matt.  xxii.  24.  This  is  the  condemnation,  that 
Tvhen  light  c^me  into  the  world,  they  loved  darkness  rather 
than  light.  John  iii.  18,  ly.  Men  are  expressly  con- 
demned, because  they  would  not  believe  in  Christ,  nor 
come  unto  him,  that  they  might  have  life,  c.  v.  40.;  and 
therefore  they  die  in  their  sins,  as  the  apostle  John  often 
represents,  c.  viii.  21.  24.  Surely  the  Lord  Jesus  would 
never  be  sent  injiamingfre  to  render  vengeance  on  thciu 
that  obey  not  the  Gospel,  (2  Thes.  i.  8,  9.)  in  the  commands 
of  it,  nor  receive  this  salvation,  if  there  was  not  sufficient 
salvatioil  provided  in  that  Gospel  which  commands  them  to 
receive  it. 

It  will  render  this  consideration  much  more  forcible, 
when  we  observe,  that  there  is  a  much  severer  condemna- 
tion, and  more  dreadful  punishment,  threatened  to  those 
who  have  heard  of  this  grace,  and  never  laid  hold  of  it,  in 
proportion  to  the  degree  of  light  in  which  this  grace  was 
set  before  them.  It  is  said.  It  shall  be  less  tolerable  for 
the  cities  rchich  refused  to  receive  the  Gospel  that  Christ 
preached,  than  for  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day 
of  judgment,  Matt.  xi.  22.  And  they  that  despised  the 
Gospel  of  Christ,  of  how  much  sorer  punishment  suppose 
ye  shall  they  be  thought  worthy,  than  those  that  despised 
Moses' law?  Heb.  x.  28,  29.  So  that  their  enjoying  the 
proposals  of  this  grace,  makes  their  case  much  worse  than 
if  they  had  never  enjoyed  it :  and  can  we  think  that  the 
righteous  judge  of  the  world  will  merely  send  words  of 
grace  and  salvation  amongst  them,  on  purpose  to  make  his 
creatures  so  much  the  more  miserable,  when  there  is  no 
Teal  grace  or  salvation  contained  in  these  words  for  them 
who  receive  it.?  It  is  very  hard,  indeed,  to  vindicate  the 
pighteousness  of  the  sentence  of  their  double  condemna- 


350 

tion  and  punishment,  for  the  refusal  of  pardon  and  salva- 
tion, if  there  was  not  so  much  as  a  conditional  pardon,  and 
a  conditional  salvation,  provided  for  them. 

4.  It  is  very  hard  to  suppose,  that  when  the  word  of  God, 
by  the  general  commands,  promises,  and  threatenings, 
given  to  all  men  whatsoever,  and  often  repeated  therein, 
represents  mankind  in  a  state  of  probation*,  and  in  the 
way  towards  eternal  rewards,  or  eternal  punishments,  ac- 
cording to  tlieir  behaviour  in  this  life — I  say,  it  is  hard  to 
suppose  all  this  should  be  no  real  and  just  representation, 
but  a  mere  amusement :  that  all  these  proposals  of  mercy, 
and  displays  of  the  gracious  dealings  of  God,  should  be 
an  empty  show  with  regard  to  all  the  millions  of  mankind, 
besides  the  few  that  are  chosen  to  happiness ;  and  that 
they  should  really  be  so  fixed  in  a  wretched,  hopeless,  and 
deplorable  state,  under  the  first  sin  of  the  first  man,  that 
they  are  utterly  irrecoverable  from  the  ruins  of  it;  and 
that  even  as  unalterably  *o  as  devils  are,  without  any  hope 
of  recovery  from  their  state  of  guilt  and  misery,  for  whom 
there  was  no  Saviour  provided,  and  whom  God  has  not 
treated  in  this  way  of  precept,  promising  and  threatening. 
Is  there  not  a  plain  diflference  made  in  Scripture  between 
the  angels  zoho  sinned,  whom  God  spared  not,  hut  cast 
them  down  from  heaven  into  chains  of  darkness,  and  man- 
kind who  sinned,  to  whom  God  gives  time  and  space  for  re- 

*  I  know  it  has  been  the  opinion  of  some  persons,  that  this  life  is  not  pro- 
perly called  a  state  of  probation,  or  trial  of  men  for  eternity,  because  the  final 
event  is  not  uncertain,  since  it  is  knoAvn  to  God  already,  and  partly  determin- 
ed by  him  :  and  yet  these  very  persons  will  say  that  a  season  of  affliction  or 
teraptation  is  a  season  of  trial  to  the  people  of  God  ;  for  so  it  is  often  called  in 
Scriptiu-e.  2.  Cor.  viii.  2.  Heb.  xi.  36.  1  Pet.  ir.  12.  &  1  Pet.i.  7. ;  it  is  called 
the  trial  of  our  fmth,  &c.  Now,  I  would  fain  know,  whether  the  event  of 
every  season  of  trial  of  every  kind  of  men,  whctlier  of  s;uuts  or  sinucrs,  be  not 
knofln  to  God,  and  in  this  sense  is  uncertain  ;  and  yet  Scripture  with  much 
propriety  calls  the  one  a  season  of  trial  :  and  I  see  no  reason  to  exclude  the 
other  from  the  same  name,  especially  since  the  sacred  writei-s  use  it  for 
wicked  men  also.  Rev.  iii.  10.  "  I  w  ill  keep  thee  from  Uie  hour  of  tempta- 
tion, (or  trial,)  which  s'lall  come  upon  all  the  worW,  to  try  them  which  dwell 
upon  the  earth." 


351 

pcntance,  means  of  grace,  oficrs  of  pardon,  conditional 
promises  of  salvation,  with  a  command  for  all  men  to  ac- 
cept of  it  r  What  can  manifest  the  blessed  God  to  be  up- 
on terms  of  mercy  with  them,  if  this  does  not  ? 

5.  This  seems  to  be  a  fair  and  easy  way  to  answer  several 
of  those  texts  of  Scripture  wiiich  represent  God  as  the  Sa- 
viour of  all  men,  (speciallif  of  them  zeho  believe,  1  Tim,  iv. 
10.;  and  assert  that  God  calls  and  commands  all  men  every 
where  to  repent,  Acts  xvii.  30.  That  Christ  tasted  death 
for  every  man,  Heb.  ii.  9*  That  he  gave  himself  a  ransom 
for  all  men,  to  be  testified  in  due  time,  1  Tim.  ii.  0.  That 
he  died  for  all,  2  Cor.  v.  15.  That  he  gave  himself  to  be 
the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  1  John  ii.  '2. 
And  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 
c.  iv.  14.  And  that  God  so  loved  the  world  of  mankind, 
that  he  sent  his  Son  not  ta  condemn  the  world,  hut  that 
through  him  the  zc'orld  might  be  saved.  And  that  Avhoso- 
ever  believes  in  his  Son  Jesus,  should  not  perish^  but  should 
have  eternal  life,  John  iii.  l6,  17. 

I  grant,  indeed,  that  many  of  the  Scriptures  may  have 
a  pretty  sufficient  answer  given  to  them  by  the  art  of  criti- 
cism, even  upon  the  supposition,  that  salvation  is  provided 
only  for  the  elect :  but  there  are  some  few  of  those  Scrip- 
tures, and   of  their  parallel  places,  which  can  never  be  so 
well  explained,  but  by  supposing  the  death  of  Christ  has  such 
an  all-sufficient  and  overflowing  merit  in  it,  as  to  provide  a 
sufficient  conditional  pardon,  and  conditional  salvation  for 
the  non-elect,  while  it  also  provides  absolute,  effectual,  and 
certain  pardon  and  salvation  for  those  whom  God  has 
elected.     It  seems  evident  to  me,  from  several  texts  of  the 
word  of  God,  that  Christ  did  not  die  with  an  equal  design 
for  all  men  ;  but  that  there  is  a  special  number  whom  the 
Father  chose  and  gave  to  the  Son,  whose  salvation  is  ab- 
solutely secured  by  the  death  and   intercession  of  Christ, 
John  xviii.  6.  9, 10. :  but  why  should  this  hinder  our  inter- 
pretation of  some  other  texts  in  a  more  general  and  Ca- 
tholic sense,  where  the  love  of  God  and  Christ  to  mankind 


are  expressed  in  more  universal  phrases  and  terms  ?  Why 
should  we  aft'ect  to  limit  that  grace  which  is  expressed  in 
an  unlimited  form  of  speech  ?  Why  may  we  not  suppose 
conditional  pardon,  and  conditional  salvation,  and  the  of- 
fers of  the  Gospel,  and  the  means  of  grace  which  are  ne- 
cessary to  it,  to  be  the  pwchase  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
-since  the  death  of  so  glorious  a  person  has  such  an  exube- 
rant value  in  it,  and  such  all-sufficient  merit :  and  especial- 
ly, since  it  is  allowed  to  supe-r-abound  so  far  as  to  purchase 
the  continuance  of  the  world,  and  common  blessings  of 
life  to  mankind  ? 

Here  let  it  be  observed,  that  when  the  Remonstrants  as- 
sert, that  Christ  died  for  all  mankind,  merely  to  purchase 
conditional  salvation  for  them,  and  when  those,  wlio  pro- 
fess to  be  the  strictest  Calvinists*  assert,  Christ  died  only 
and  merely  to  procure  absolute  and  effectual  pardon  and 
salvation  for  the  elect,  it  is  not  because  the  whole  Scripture 
every  where  expressly  or  plainly  reveals  or  asserts  the  par- 
ticular sentiments  of  either  of  these  sects,  with  an  exclu- 
sion of  the  other ;  but  the  reason  of  these  different  asser- 
tions of  men  is  this  ;  that  the  holy  writers,  in  different  texts, 
pursuing  different  subjects,  and  speaking  to  different  per- 
sons, sometimes  seem  to  favour  each  of  these  two  opinionsf ; 
and  men  being  at  a  loss  to  reconcile  them  by  any  medium, 
run  into  different  extremes,  and  entirely  follow  one  of  these 
tracts  of  thought,  and  neglect  the  other.  But,  surely,  if 
there  can  be  a  way  found  to  reconcile  these  two  doctrines 
9f  the  absolute  salvation  of  the  elect,  by  the  obedience, 

*  I  say,  those  -who  profess  to  be  the  strictest  Calvinists  :  not  that  they  d» 
come  nearest  to  Calvin's  sentiments  and  language  ;  for  Calvin  himself  haa 
li'cquently  intimated,  in  his  Comments  on  Scripture,  that  Christ  did,  in  some 
sense,  die  for  all  men. 

^  This  is  a  most  evident  truth,  that  Scriptui-e,  in  different  parts  of  it,  seems 
by  its  expressions  to  favour  each  of  these  opinions  :  otherwise  it  could  never 
be,  that  the  writers  of  the  different  parties  should  each  of  them  bring  so 
many  texts  to  support  and  vindicate  their  own  sentiments,  and  which  phiinly 
give  so  much  difficulty  and  perplexity  lo  the.  writers  of  the  oypysite  side  ta 
answer  them. 


1 


353 

iightoousness,  aril  death  of  Christ,  procuring  it  for  ihem, 
With  all  thini^s  ne(;cssarv  to  the  possession  of  it,  and  also  of 
the  conditional  salvation  provided  for  all  mankind,  and  of- 
fered to  them  in  the  gospel,  through  the  all-sufficient  and 
oveiiiowinff  value  of  the  obedience  and  sufferings  of  Christ. 
This  will  be  the  most  fair,  natural,  and  easy  way  of  recon- 
ciling those  different  texts  of  Scripture,  without  any  strain 
or  torture  put  upon  any  of  them. 

Nor  indeed  can  I  conceive  why  the  Remonstrant,  (Armi- 
nian,)  should  be  uneasy  to  have  pardon  and  salvation  ab- 
solutclv  provided  tor  the  elect,  since  all  the  rest  of  mankind, 
especially  such  as  hear  the  Gospel,  have  the  same  condi- 
tional salvation  which  they  contend  for,  sincerely  proposed 
to  their  acceptance :  nor  can  I  see  any  reason  why  the 
stiictcst  Calvinist  should  be  angry  that  the  all-sufficient 
merit  of  Christ  should  overflow  so  far  in  its  influence,  as 
to  provide-conditional  salvation  for  all  mankind,  since  the 
elect  of  God  have  that  certain  and  absolute  salvation  which 
they  contend  for,  secured  to  them  by  the  same  merit ;  and 
especially  smce  that  i^rcat  and  admirable  Reformer,  John 
Calvm,  whose  name  the)-  affect  to  wear,  and  to  whose  au- 
thority they  pay  so  great  a  regard,  has  so  plainly  declared 
in  his  writings,  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  Christ  died 
for  the  siiis  of  the  whole  world,  or  all  mankind  :  and  he 
sometimes  goes  so  far  as  to  call  this  the  redemption  of  all. 
See  his  Comments  on  the  following  Scriptures*  : 

iVJatt.  xviii.  8.  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  was  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Sub 
multorum  nomine  non  partem  mundi  tantum  disignat,  sed 
totum  humanum  genus.  Under  the  name  of  many,  he  sig- 
nifies not  a  part  of  the  world  only,  but  all  mankind. 

Rom.  V.    J8.     As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came 

•  It  may  be  proper  to  observe  here,  that  some  of  the  most  rigid  and  nar- 
row limitations  of  grace  to  men,  are  found  chiefly  in  his  Institutions,  wliich 
were  written  in  Yus  youth.  Rut  his  comments  on  Scripture  wea-e  the  labours 
of  his  riper  years,  and  maturer  judgment- 

2    Z 


354 

upon  all  to  c5ondemnation,  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one, 
the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life. 
Communem  omnium  gratiam  facit  quia  omnibus  exposita 
est,  non  quod  ad  omnes  extendatur  re  ipsa  :  nam  etsi  pas- 
sus  est  Christus  pro  peccatis  totius  mundi,  atque  Omnibus 
indifferenter  Dei  benignitate  offertur^  non  tamen  omnes  ap- 
prehendunt.  He  makes  this  grace  common  to  all,  because 
it  is  set  before  all,  though  not  really  and  in  fact  reached 
out  to  all.  For  though  Christ  suffered  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  and  he  is  offered  indifferently  to  all  by  the 
bounty  of  God,  yet  all  do  not  receive  him. 

1  Cor.  viii.  11,  12.  "Through  thy  knowledge  shall  the 
weak  brother  perish  for  whom  Christ  died."  On  which 
Calvin  remarks  thus  :  "  if  the  soul  of  every  weak  person  was 
the  purchase  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  he  that  for  the  sake  of 
a  little  meat,  plunges  his  brother  again  into  death  who  was 
redeemed  by  Christ,  shows  at  how  mean  a  rate  he  esteems 
the  blood  of  Christ." 

1  John  ii.  2.  "  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  :  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.'' 
Hicmovetur  quaistio,  quomodoniundi  totius  peccata  expi- 
entur  ?  aliqui  dixerunt — sufficienter  pro  toto  mundo  pas- 
sum  esse  Christum,  sed  pro  electis,  tantum  efficaciter.  Vul- 
go  haec  solutio  in  scholiis  obtinuit :  Ego  quanquam  verum 
esse  illud  dictum  fateor,  nego  tamen  presenti  loco  quadrare. 
Here  a  question  is  raised,  how  can  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world  be  expiated  ?  Some  have  said,  Christ  suffered  suffi- 
ciently for  the  whole  world,  but  effectually  for  the  elect 
only :  this  is  the  common  solution  of  the  schools :  and 
though  I  confess  this  is  a  truth,  yet  I  do  not  think  it  agrees 
to  this  place.  2.  P.  ii.  1.  "There  shall  be  false  teachers 
among  you  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies, 
even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them,  and  bring  upon 
themselves  swift  destruction."  Tamisti  variis  mod  is  abne- 
gatiir  Christus,  eum  tamen  hie,  meo  judicio,  attingit  Pe- 
trus,  qui  expernitur  apud  Judam  :  nempe  dum  gratia  Dei 
in  lasciviam  convertitur.     Tledemit  enira  nos  Christus,  ut 


355 

populumhabctscgregalumab  omnibus  mundi  inquiiiHineo- 
tis  AJdictuin  Sanctitati,  et  innocentio.  Qui  igitur  ex- 
cusso  tVa'iio,  in  omncm  licentiam  se  j)ro)iciunt,  non  imme- 
rito  dicuntur  Christum  ubnegare,  a  quo  redempti  sunt. 
That  is,  though  Christ  is  denied  many  ways,  yet  in  my  opin- 
ion Peter  means  the  same  thing  here  which  Jude  expresses, 
viz.  that  the  grace  of  God  is  turned  into  wantonness  :  for 
Christ  hath  redeemed  us,  that  he  might  have  a  people  free 
from  all  the  defilements  of  the  world,  and  devoted  to  holi- 
ness and  innocence.  Whosoever  therefore  shake  off  the 
yoke,  and  throw  themselves  into  licentioussness,  are  justly 
»aid  to  deny  Christ,  by  whom  they  were  redeemed. 

Jude  V.  4.  "  Turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into  wan- 
tonness, and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord." 

Christum  vero  abnegari  intelligit,  quum  hi  qui  sanguine 
illius  redempti  fuerant,  diabolo  se  rursus  mancipantes,  in- 
comparabile  illud  pretium  quantum  in  se  irritum  faciunt. 

The  Apostle  here  means  that  Christ  is  denied,  when  those 
who  were  redeemed  with  his  blood,  again  enslave  them- 
selves to  the  Devil,  and,  as  far  as  in  them  lies,  make  that 
incomparable  price  vain  and  ineffectual.  Thus  it  appears 
that  Calvin  himself  thought  that  Christ  and  his  salvation 
are  offered  to  all,  and  that  in  some  sense  he  died  for  all. 

6.  That  all  mankind  have  some  conditional  salvation 
provided  for  them,  and  some  real  grace  and  pardon  offered 
to  them  by  a  new  covenant,  appears  from  this,  that  all 
men,  both  wicked  and  righteous,  or  just  and  unjust,  shall 
be  raised  from  the  dead,  to  give  an  account  of  things  done 
in  the  body,  whether  good  or  evil,  and  to  receive  rewards 
and  punishments  in  their  body,  as  well  as  in  their  souls,  ac- 
cording to  their  improvement  or  misimprovement  of  the 
dispensations  under  which  they  have  lived  :  this  seems  to 
be  the  sense  of  several  Scriptures  ;  John  v.  28,  29.  2  Cor. 
V.  10.  Now  a  resurrection  is  by  no  means  provided  by  the 
law  of  innocency,  or  the  covenant  of  works :  that  only 
threatens  death  for  sin,  without  the  least  hint  or  thought  of 


356 

the  bodies  rising  again.  This  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, therefore,  seems  to  be  the  effect  of  the  overflowing 
merit  of  Christ,  and  perhaps  that  expression  of  the  Apos- 
tle may  have  some  reference  to  it.  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  22. 
''  Since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead;  for  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive."  Though  I  confess  it  may  be  also 
construed  and  confined  only  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
saints.  But  it  is  evident  that  Jesus  Christ  has  this  power 
to  raise  the  dead,  even  sinners  as  well  as  saints,  and  au- 
thoritii  to  judge  all  the  world,  given  him  of  the  father  as 
mediator,  or  because  he  is  the  son  of  man.  And  they  that 
are  in  the  graves — shall  come  forth  :  they  who  have  done 
good  to  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done 
evil  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation.  John  v.  2o — 29. 
They  who  have  believed  in  Christ,  and  obeyed  him,  shall 
be  raised  up  at  last  to  happiness  ;  but  those  who  have  diso- 
beyed the  gospel,  shall  be  raised  in  order  to  be  punished 
with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord. 
2  Thess.  i.  y. 

Tsow  surely  this  resursection  of  all  mankind,  must  be 
built  on  the  foot  of  a  new  covenant,  given  or  offered  to  all 
mankind,  since  the  old  covenant  of  innocenc}'^,  or  the  law 
of  works,  appoints  eternal  life,  without  dying  for  the  obedi-^ 
ent,  and  death  without  a  resurrection  for  the  disobedient. 
Such  a  covenant  as  admits  natural  death,  to  seize  even  upon 
those  who  are  obedient  to  it,  and  provides  a  resurrection 
even  lor  those  who  are  disobedient,  must  meeds  be  a  differ- 
ent covenant  from  the  law  of  works,  which  admits  no  death 
for  the  one,  nor  provides  any  resurrection  for  the  other. 
There  was  therefore,  doubtless,  a  general  proclamation  of 
pardon,  and  salvation  to  all  mankind,  who  were  fallen  n 
Adam,  contained  in  the  first  promise,  or  the  gospel  that 
•was  preached  to  Adam,  the  first  father  of  mankind,  by  God 
himself,  in  the  garden,  after  his  fall.  And  this  was  again 
preached  to  Noah,  the  second  father  of  mankmd,  and  a 
preacher  of  righteousness :  otherwise,  I  think,  the  resur- 


357 

rection  would  not  reach  to  every  man  and  woman  in  the 

world  Let  it  be  coiisideied  also,  that  this  very  resurrec- 
tion of"  the  h()(hfs  of'sintul  mankind  brings  with  it  an  addi- 
tional penalty  and  misery,  beyond  whatthe  lawotinnocen- 
cy  threatened,  even  lUe  everlasting  punishment  of  the 
new  raised  body,  and  the  soul  united  to  it.  Now  this  can- 
not, with  so  evident  justice,  be  inflicted  upon  the  non-elect, 
it'  thev  arc  under  no  other  covenant  but  that  ot"  innocency^ 
or  the  law  ot  works,  because  no  such  punishment  is  threat- 
ened, or  implied  in  that  law,  as  far  as  I  can  read  it. 

Nor  would  there  have  been  any  such  thing  as  sinners 
arising  from  the  dead,  that  we  can  find  in  the  Bible^  if 
Christ  had  not  taken  upon  hira  to  be  mediator  between  God 
and  fallen  man,  so  far  as  to  set  mankind  upon  some  new  foot 
of  hope  ;  and  thus  unbelievers  and  impenitent  persons  are 
punished  in  their  new  raised  bodies,  for  rejecting  this  hope. 
For  s^ince  the  broken  law,  or  covenant  of  works,  leaves 
the  body  under  the  power  of  death  for  ever,  we  can  hardly 
suppose  that  the  Son  of  God,  the  chief  minister  of  his  Fa- 
ther's grace,  would  provide  a  resurrection  of  the  body  for 
breakers  of  that  original  law,  merely  to  put  them  to  severer 
punishments  and  more  intense  torments,  than  that  broken 
law  threatened,  if  there  were  not  some  advantage  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  derived  to  them  from  his  mediation,  to  ba- 
lance it.  Now,  what  equal  advantage  is  there  to  balance 
this  severer  punishment,  if  there  be  not  some  conditional 
hope  of  their  recovery  from  the  misery  of  the  fallen  state, 
npon  supposition  that  they  sincerely  endeavour  to  perform 
all  the  duties  of  this  new  covenant,  so  far  as  the  revelation 
of  them  comes  within  their  notice  :  that  is,  that  they  re- 
pent of  their  sins,  and  trust  in  the  divine  grace  and  forgive- 
ness, in  order  to  their  acceptance. 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the"  righteous  and  appointed 
.ludge,  will  never  give  occasion  for  any  of  all  the  miserable 
multitude  to  say,  that  they  are  condemned  to  an  endless 
punishment  in  their  new  raised  bodies,  for  breaking  God's 
original  law  of  innocency,  which  punishment  was  never 


358 

threatened  in  tlie  law.  He  will  never  give  them  reason  to 
comphiin,  that,  with  regard  to  them,  he  came  not  to  be  a 
Mediator  or  Saviour,  but  merely  to  add  to  their  misery,  by 
a  resurrection  to  eternal  pain,  without  any  equivalent  of 
hope  :  or,  that  he  came  to  expose  them  to  double  damna> 
lion  for  refusing  his  grace,  when  he  had  none  for  them 
to  accept.  The  goddness  and  equity  of  God  and  his 
Son,  will  never  suffer  such  an  imputation  to  fall  upon  any 
part  of  their  transactions :  and  as  they  have  both  agreed  in 
pronouncing  these  words,  John  iii.  17.  God  sent  not  his  Son 
into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world 
through  him  might  be  saved*. 

Since,  therefore,  it  appears  pretty  evident,  that  Jesus,  the 
righteous  Judge,  will  not  condemn  sinners  for  refusing  that 
grace,  and  that  salvation,  which  had  no  reality  in  things, 
and  which  was  never  really  offered  to  their  acceptance,  nor 
so  much  as  provided :  and  since  he  will  never  punish  sin- 
ners by  the  mere  law  or  covenant  of  works,  with  a  punish- 
ment of  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  which  was  never  threat- 
ened nor  included  in  that  law  or  covenant,  we  must  con- 
clude, according  to  the  representation  of  scripture,  accord- 
to  the  rules  of  justice,  and  the  reason  of  things,  that  there 
must  be  some  other  covenant,  some  covenant  of  grace  and 
salvation,  under  which  all  men  are  situated,  and  which  has 
really  been  offered  to  all  mankind,  either  in  clearer  or  in 
more  obscure  notices  thereof:  such  a  covenant,  whereby 
the  resurrection  of  the  body  to  eternal  happiness,  is  the 
appointed  reward  of  those  who  receive  this  offered  reward 
of  salvation  :  and  whereby  the  resurrection  of  the  body  to 
eternal  misery,  is  the  appointed  punishment  of  those,  who 
refuse  to  comply  with  the  grace  of  that  dispensation  under 
which  they  are  placed,  and  neglect  to  receive  this  salva- 
tion.    Thus,  1  think,  I  have  proved  it  pretty  clearly,  at  least 

•  If  the  word  world,  in  the  two  or  three  first  places,  signifies  mankind,  with- 
out distinction,  why  should  the  -world,  in  the  last  place,  signify  only  the  elect  ? 
Is  not  a  conditional  or  indefinitive  salvation  here  intimated  to  be  proridcd  fv 
lustnkind,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles  ? 


359 

to  iny  own  saiistaction,  that  the  non-elect  amont^  men,  arc 
not  prcilestinatcd  to  eternal  misery  by  any  absolute  act  of  re- 
probation ;  nor  are  they  loft  in  the  state  of  fallen  angels,  or 
devils,  for  whom  there  is  no  Saviour  appointed,  and  who 
cannot  have  any  reasonable  hope  :  but  that  there  is  a  con- 
ditional salvation  provided  lor  all  men,  and  offered  to  them 
in  the  gospel,  by  the  glorious  all-sufficiency  and  redun- 
dance of  the  merit  ot  Christ. 

The  doctrine  of  reprobation,  in  the  most  severe  and  ab* 
sulutesenseof  it,  stands  in  such  a  direct  contradiction  to  all 
our  notions  of  kindness  and  love  to  others,  in  which  the 
blessed  God  is  set  forth   as  our  example,  that  our  reasoH 
cannot  tell  how  to  receive  it.     Yet,  if  it  were  never  so 
true,  and  never  so  plainly  revealed  in  scripture,  it  would 
only  be  a  doctrine  v.hich  might  require  our  humble  assent, 
and  our  silent  submission  to  it,  with  awful  reverence  of  the 
majesty  and  sovereignty  of  the  great  God.     But  it  is  by  no 
means  a  doctrine,  in  which  we,   as  men,  could  or  should 
rejoice  and  glory,  or  take  pleasure  in  it :  because  it  hath  so 
dreadful  an  aspect  on  far  the  greatest  part  of  our  fellow- 
creatures,  considered  as  uiere  creatures.     Nor  do  1  think 
the  blessed  God  would  require  us  so  far  to  divest  ourselves 
of  humanity,   as  to  take   a  secret  satisfaction   in  the  ab- 
solute and  eternal  appoiulmentof  such  numbers  of  our  kin- 
dred  in  flesh  and  blood,  to  everlasting  perdition  :  much 
less  should  we  make  this  awful  and  terrible  article  a  matter 
of  our  public  boast  and  triumph,  even  if  we  could  prove  it 
to  be  revealed;  but  rather  mourn  for  it.     And  since  there 
are  so  many  expressions  in  Scripture,  that  give  us  reason  to 
think  that  Christ  lived  and  died,  in  some  respects,  as  a  com- 
mon Mediator  of  inunkiud,  though  with  a  peculiar  regard 
to  the  elect,  methinks  this  doctrine  of  the  extensive  good- 
ness of  God,  is  a  much  more  desirable  opinion,  and  should 
be  more  cheerfully  received  by  us,  as  it  is  so  agreeable  to  our 
charity  to  all  men,  and  seems  so  necessary  to  us  at  present, 
for  vindicating  the  justice,  goodness,  and  sincerity  of  God, 
m  his  transactions  w  iiii  mankind.     When,  therefore,  1  hear 


360 

men  talk  of  the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  with  a  special  gust 
and  i-eHsh,  as  a  favourite  article,  1  cannot  but  suspect  their 
good  temper,  and  question,  whether  they  love  their  neigh- 
bour as  they  do  themselves.  Tlie  case  is  very  different,  when 
saints  are  called  in  scripture  to  rejoice  in  the  public  judg- 
ments of  God,  exercised  upon  the  antichristian  state,or  upon 
the  wicked  oppressors  and  incorrigible  sinners  of  the  world  : 
for  that  is  the  effect  of  God's  equity  or  righteousness,  as  a 
wise  and  faithful  Governor ;  but  this  would  be  an  instance 
merely  of  his  dreadful  sovereignty  and  terror,  and  hardly 
consistent  with  his  goodness. 

1  would  ask  leave  also,  in  this  place,  to  inquire,  what 
great  advantage  can  be  derived  to  religion  or  Christianity, 
by  endeavouring  to  limit  the  extent  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  to  take  away  all  manner  of  hopes,  and  prayers,  and  en- 
deavours, from  the  non-elect  ?  Does  the  doctrme  of  elec- 
tion of  persons  obtain  any  further  conKrmation  by  it?  No, 
by  no  means.  Their  salvation  is  secured,  whatsoever  be- 
comes of  the  rest  of  mankind,  whether  they  have  any  hopes 
or  no.  Does  the  goodness  and  special  grace  of  God  acquire 
any  further  honours  b}-  this  limitation  ?  No,  certainly. 

Divine  grace  is  perfectly  the  same  towards  the  elect,  as 
though  there  were  no  other  persons  in  the  world.  Are  the 
elect  any  way  discouraged  by  it  ?  Not  in  the  least.  But 
many  persons  who  are  awakened  to  a  sense  of  sin,  and  are 
seeking  after  Christ  for  salvation,  by  this  narrow  doctrine, 
may  be  terribly  discouraged  from  receiving  his  offers  of 
grace,  when  they  are  taught  to  doubt  whether  there  be  any 
grace  provided  for  them,  or  whether  Jesus  be  appointed  to 
act  as  their  Saviour.  It  may  be'  a  means  to  drive  some . 
poor  souls  to  despair,  when  they  hear,  that  unless  they  are 
elected,  they  may  seek  after  salvation  by  Christ  in  vain,  for 
there  is  none  purchased  for  them,  not  as  much  as  condi- 
tionally. And  it  may  tempt  them  to  begin  at  the  wrong 
end,  and  seek  to  pry  into  the  councils  of  God,  and  inquire 
after  what  they  can  never  know,  that  is,  their  election  of 


1 


361 

God,  1)pfore  llie}-  dare  trust  his  grace,  or  submit  to  tlie  gos*- 
pel  ol  Cluist. 

Now,  if  many  inconveniences  may  arise  from  this  hmita- 
tation  <)t"  tlie  whole  virtue  ot"  ilie  blood  ot  Christ  only  tu  the 
elect,  and  utterly  secluding  all  the  rest  ot  mankind,  and  it' 
no  valuable  end  or  advantage  can  be  obtaineu  by  this  nar- 
row opmion,  what  should  make  men  so  zealous  to  get  liie 
greatest  part  ot  the  world  excluded  utterly  from  ali  l»opes 
and  all  salvation  ?  I  know  there  have  been  many  objec- 
tions raised  against  this  ciiaritable  opiiu.^n,  of  the  extent  of 
Christ's  death,  in  books  ot  controveisy  :  but  tlie  two  cl  lef, 
and  most  plausible,  are  these,  which  1  will  endeavour  chiefly 
to  answer,  and  by  these  answers  lead  the  way  lor  solving 
the  rest. 

Objection  1.  But  may  it  not  be  said  here,  if  there  be 
only  an  outward  sudiciency  ot  salvation  provided  for  the 
non-elect,  by  a  conditional  pardon  procured  through 
the  death  of  Christ,  if  they  should  repent  and  believe, 
but  no  inward  sutficiency  of  grace  provided  to  enlight- 
en their  minds,  to  change  their  hearts,  and  enable  them 
to  exercise  this  faith  and  repentance,  the  event  will  be 
irifallibly  and  necessarily  the  same,  and  their  damnation 
as  necessary  and  certain  as  if  there  were  no  outward  salva- 
tion provided  r  Since  they  of  themselves  cannot  repent, 
they  cannot  believe  :  for  by  the  fall  of  all  men  they  are  be- 
come blind  in  spiritual  things,  and  dead  in  sin. 

Answer.  It  is  granted,  that  no  sinner  will  truly  and  sin- 
cerely repent  and  believe  in  Christ,  without  the  powerful 
and  etfectual  influences  of  converting  grace ;  and  therefore 
they  are  called  blind  and  dead  In  nn  ;  because  God  knows 
the  final  event  will  be  the  same  as  if  they  were  under  a 
natural  impossibility,  or  utter  natural  impotence :  and  ibr 
this  reason  the  conversion  of  a  sinner  is  calied,  a  new  crea- 
tion ;  being  born  again ;  giving  sight  to  tfi  blind ;  or,  a 
rtsurrection  from  the  dtad.  And  the  necessity  of  divine 
power  toell'ect  this  change,  is  held  forth  iff  man  v  places  of 
scripture.  Yet  we  must  say  still,  that  sinners  are  not  un- 
der such  a  real   natural  iQ>possibility  of  repenting  and  be- 

3  A 


362 

iieving,  as  though  they  were  naturally  blind  or  dead.  It 
is  true,  the  blind  and  the  dead  have  lost  their  natural  pow- 
ers of  seeing  and  moving.  But  when  scripture  represents 
the  inabihty  of  sinners  to  repent,  or  believe  in  Christ,  by 
such  figures  and  metaphors  as  death  or  blindness,  it  must 
be  remembered,  these  are  but  metaphors  and  figures, 
such  as  the  holy  writers,  and  all  the  eastern  nations 
frequently  use.  And  they  must  not  be  understood  iu 
their  literal  powers,  or  faculties  of  understanding,  will, 
and  affections,  which  are  the  only  natural  powers  ne- 
cessary to  believe  and  repent.  Now  it  is  plain  that  these 
natural  faculties,  powers,  or  capacities,  are  not  lost  by  the 
fall  :  for  if  they  were,  there  would  be  no  manner  of  need 
or  use  of  any  moral  means  or  motives,  such  as  commands, 
threatenings,  promises,  exhortations  :  they  would  all  be  im- 
pertinent and  absurd;  for  they  could  have  no  more  influence 
on  sinners,  than  if  we  command  a  blind  person  to  see,  or  a 
dead  body  to  rise  or  move :  w  hich  commands  and  exhorta- 
tions would  appear  ridiculous  and  useless.  And  since  the 
blessed  God,  in  his  word,  uses  these  moral  means  and  mo- 
tives, to  call  sinners  to  repentance  and  faith,  it  is  certain 
that  they  have  natural  powers  and  faculties  sufficient  to 
understand  and  practise :  and  therefore  they  are  not  under 
a  necessity  of  sinning,  and  of  being  destroyed,  since  there 
is  nothing  more  wanted  in  a  way  of  sufficient  natural  pow- 
6M,  faculties,  or  abilities,  than  what  they  have. 

All  the  other  impotence  and  inability,  therefore,  to  sin- 

-jiers  to  repent  or  believe,  properly  speaking,  is  but  moral, 

or  seated  chiefly  in  their  wills.     It  is  a  great  disinclination 

or  aversion  in  these  natural  faculties,  to  attend  to,  learn,  or 

practise  the  things  of  God  and  religion* :  and  this  holds 


*  I  grant  this  inability  to  repent  has  been  sometimes  called  by  our  divines 
a  natui'.il  impotence,  because  it  arises  fi-oni  the  original  corruption  of  our  na- 
ture since  the  fall  of  Adam;  and  in  this  sense  I  fully  believe  it.  But  this 
spring  of  it  is  much  better  siguified  and  expressed  by  the  name  of  native  im- 
potence, to  show  that  it  comes  from  our  birth  ;  and  the  (juality  of  this  impo- 
teiiCe  is  best  nailed  moral,  being  seated  chiefly  in  the  vill  and  affections,  and 
not  iu  any  waat  <3f  uatural  powers  or  faculties  to  perform  what  God  requires; 


•     363 

them  fast  in  their  sinful  state  in  a  similar  way,  as  if  they 
Were  blind  or  deaii — and  1  said  the  final  event  will  be  the 
same  ;  iliat  is,  the)-  will  never  repent  without  Almiglity 
grace.  And  upon  this  account,  that  strong  and  settled  in- 
clination to  sin,  and  aversion  to  God,  which  is  in  the  will  or 
aflections,  is  represented,  in  our  own  language,  as  well  as  in 
the  eastern  countries,  by  impotence  or  inability,  cr  inability 
to  forsake  or  subdue  sin  :  as  when  a  drunkard  shall  say,  I 
had  such  a  strong  desire  to  the  liquor,  that  I  could  not  but 
drink  to  excess ;  1  could  not  withhold  the  cup  from  my 
mouth  :  or  when  a  murderer  shall  say,  1  hated  my  neigh- 
bour so  much,  that  having  a  fair  opportunity,  I  could  not 
help  killing  him  :  or  when  we,  saying  to  a  man  in  fury  in 
his  passion.  You  are  so  warm  at  pnscnt,  that  you  can- 
not see  things  in  a  true  light,  you  cannot  hearken  to  rea- 
son, 1/ou  cannot  judge  aright^  you  are  not  capable  of  acting 
regularly.  And  that  this  is  the  manner  of  speaking  in  the 
eastern  countries,  is  evident  from  the  Bible,  Gen.  xxxvii.  4. 
Joseph's  brethren  hated  him,  and  could  not  speak  peaceably 
to  him.  Yet  you  will  grant  all  this  i^  but  moral  impotence ; 
that  is,  a  very  strong  inclination  to  excess  of  drink,  or  mur- 
der, or  passion,  or  a  strong  aversion  to  the  contrary  virtues. 
Even  in  the  things  of  common  life,  the  cannot,  sometimes 
signifies  nothing  but  the  zcill  not.  Luke  xi.  7-  Trouble  mt 
not ;  my  door  is  shut,  my  children  are  rcith  me  in  bed,  I 
cannot  rise  to  gixe  thee  ;  that  is,  I  will  not  And  with  re- 
gard to  faith  or  believing  in  Christ,  our  Saviour  explains 
his  own  language  in  this  manner.  In  one  place,  lie  saith, 
*^  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  except  my  Father  drawr 
him."  John  vi.  44.  And  in  another  place  he  charges  the 
Jews  with  this  as  their  fault.  Ye  Kill  not  come  unto  me,  that 
ye  may  have  life,  John  v.  40.  So  in  the  parable,  one  ex- 
cuse is,  Luke  xiv.  20,  1  have  married  a  ziife,  and — /  can- 
not come.     All  tliese  citations  intend  the  same  thing,  their 

and  the  reaion  is  plain,  ^iz.  that  no  new  natural  powers  are  given  bjr  convert- 
ing grace,  but  only  a  change  of  the  moral  bent  or  inclination  of  the  soul,  a 
happier  turn  giren  to  our  nat'iral  faculties  by  tlie  sovei-cign  grace  of  God  aiifl 
liis  Spirit. 


364 

cannot  is  their  rcill  not,  that  is,  it  is  the  strength  of  their 
aversion  to  Ciirist,  which  is  a  moral  impotence  or  inability 
to  believe  in  him,  and  the  fault  lies  in  the  will. 

St.  Paul  speaks  to  the  same  purpose,  Rom.  viii.  7,  8. 
where  he  shows  that  it  is  the  aversion  or  enmity  of  the  car- 
nal mind  to  God,  which  hinders  it  from  obeying  the  law  of 
God  ;  and  at  last  he  says  it  cannot  be  subject  to  it.  The 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be  :  so  then  they  who 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  The  I'ault  still  lies  in 
the  will  of  sinful  man  ;  and  it  is  this  makes  it  criminal, 
while  it  is  naturally  impossible  to  be  avoided  or  overcome. 
And  upon  this  account^  God  is  pleased  to  use  moral  means 
and  motives;  viz.  promises,  threatenings,  commands,  &c. 
towards  all  men,  such  as  are  suited  to  awaken  their  hearts, 
and  excite  and  persuade  their  will  to  use  all  their  natural 
abilities,  to  set  their  natural  powers  or  faculties  to  work,  to 
attend  to  and  learn,  and  practise  faith  and  jepentonce  ;  and 
it  is  by  these  very  means  God  persuades  his  elect  powerful- 
ly to  repent  arid  believe.  But  when  persons  will  not  hear, 
nor  be  influenced  by  these  motives,  because  of  their  strong 
and  wilful  aversion  to  God  and  godliness,  their  cvnne  is 
their  own,and  their  condemnation  is  just.  They  have  natural 
powers  or  faculties  in  them,  which,  if  well  tried,  might 
overcome  their  native  propensity  to  vice,  though  they  ne- 
ver will  do  it. 

If  the  great  God,  in  a  way  of  sovereign  mercy,  gives 
some  persons  superior  aids  of  grace  to  overcome  his  moral 
impotence,  anil  conquer  his  aversion  to  God  and  godliness  ; 
if  he  eftectually  leads,  inclines,  or  persuades  them  by  his 
Spirit  to  repent  and  believe  m  Christ*  ;  this  does  not  at  all 

*  Wlietlier  tlie  Spirit  of  God  effectually  persuade  the  will  to  repent  and 
believe  in  Clirist,  by  imraedfate  influence  upon  tlio  will  ilsclf,  or  by  setting  tlie 
things  of  the  Gospel  before  the  mind  in  so  strong  a  light,  and  pei-snadinp;  the 
soul  so  to  attend  to  them,  as  shall  effectually  influence  tlie  will,  this  shall  not 
be  any  of  my  present  debate  or  determination  :  for  in  both  these  the  events 
and  consequences  are  much  the  same.  There  is  no  new  natural  poMcr  or  fa- 
culty given  to  the  &nul  In  order  to  faith  and  repentance,  but ;»  divine  influence 
upon  the  old  natural  power?,  giving  them  a  new  and  better  turn. 


365 

liincier  the  others  from  exercising  their  natural  povvrrs  of 
uiRlerstandin;4  aiiiJ  will,  in  believing;  and  ie|tenting.  Nor 
call  anv  ihing  of  their  guilt  and  williil  iijiijcniienre  be  im- 
puted to  the  blessed  God,  who  is  Lord  ol  his  own  lavours, 
and  gives  or  withholds  wlitie  he  pleases,  and  wUo  s/ia/I  say 
to  him,  l\  lii.t  doest  t/iou  V  Why  should  tni/  tijc  In-  ^12/ toward 
niv  neighbour,  because  the  eye  of  God  is  good  ^  or  what 
pretence  have  1  to  charge  God  with  injustice,  when  he 
does  no  more  tor  me  than  lie  is  bound  to  do,  though  he 
does  more  tor  my  neighbour  than  he  has  done  tor  mef 

Let  this  then  be  constantly  maintained,  there  is  a  natu- 
ral, mward  suiUcicncy  of  powers  and  taculties  given  to 
eveiy  sinner,  to  hearken  to  the  calls  and  otters  of  grace 
and  the  Gospel,  though  they  lie  under  a  moral  impotence: 
and  there  is  an  outward  sulticiency  of  provision  of  pardon 
iu  the  death  of  Christ  for  every  one  who  repents  and  ac- 
cepts the  CJospel,  though  pardon  is  not  actually  procured 
for  all  men,  nor  secured  to  them.  And  thus  much  is  suffi- 
cient to  maintain  the  sincerity  of  God  in  his  universal  of- 
fers of  grace  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  present  com- 
mands to  all  men  to  repent  through  Jesus  Christ,  and  his 
present  commands  to  all  men,  to  repent  and  trust  in  his 
mercy:  as  well  as  to  vindicate  his  equity  in  the  last  great 
dav,  when  the  impenitent  and  unbelievers  shall  be  con- 
demned. Their  death  lies  at  their  own  doors ;  for  since  there 
was  both  an  outw ard  and  inward  sufficiency,  for  their  reco- 
very, the  fault  must  lie  in  their  own  iVee  will,  in  their  wilful 
aversion  to  God  and  Christ,  and  his  salvation.  1  think  that 
this  distinction  of  natural  power  and  impotence  will  recon- 
cile all  the  various  expressions  of  Scripture  on  this  subject, 
both  to  one  another,  as  well  as  to  the  reason  of  things, 
which  can  be  hardly  reconciled  any  other  way. 

Objection  2.  Suppose  the  non-elect  are  not  debarred 
from  this  salvation  by  the  want  of  natural  powers  sufficient 
to  receive  and  accept  it,  yet,  since  the  great  God  foresees 
this  their  aversion  to  repentance  and  holiness,  and  fore- 
knows they  will  never  accept  of  the  salvation  of  Christ, 
and  that  as  certainl}'  as  if  they  had^iheadv  ronouneed  it : 


366 

Joes  not  this  future  certainty  of  the  event  lay  an  eftectual 
bar  against  their  beheving  and  accepting  it  ?  For  if  they 
should  repent  and  accept,  it  wouldcontradict  the  foreknow- 
ledge of  God.  We  inquire  also  further,  can  his  offers  of 
grace  be  sincere  to  persons  whom  he  foresees  will  certainly 
reject  it?  What  are  these  offers,  but  delusions  of  their 
hope,  and  appointed  aggravations  to  increase  their  guilt, 
since  God  certainly  knows  these  offers  of  grace  will  be 
abused  only  to  sinful  purposes. 

Answer  1st.  As  for  the  first  part  of  this  Inquiry,  if  we 
will  give  ourselves  leave  to  think  impartially  upon  the  case, 
we  must  agree  that  the  mere  knowledge  of  any  event, 
without  any  real  influence  from  the  power  that  knows,  does 
not  make  the  event  necessary,  whether  it  be  foreknown  or 
after-known.  If  I  foreknow  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow, 
that  has  no  more  influence  on  the  sun's  rising,  than  m^ 
after-knowledge  that  it  rose  yesterday.  Now,  the  great 
God,  among  his  unsearchable  powers  and  perfections,  has 
a  knowledge  of  the  agency  of  free  causes,  as  we  have  of 
necessary  causes.  And  as  he  has  a  full  view  of  all  con- 
comitant circumstances,  he  hath  a  way  to  foresee  events  in 
their  contingent  causes,  such  as  the  free  will  of  man  is,  as 
well  as  we  have  a  way,  by  reason,  to  foresee  many  things  in 
their  necessary  causes.  It  is  certain  he  does  foreknow  the 
iiiture  contingent  actions  of  men,  even  their  wicked  ac- 
tions, because  he  has  foretold  a  multitude  of  them  in  the 
bible  ;  and  it  is  granted,  that  from  his  foreknowledge  of 
any  future  event,  we  may  infer  the  consequential  certainty 
of  it,  because  his  foreknowledge  cannot  be  deceived :  yet 
this  does  not  at  all  prove  his  antecedent  determination  of 
it  by  any  decree,  nor  his  influence  upon  it :  neither  can  we 
infer  from  God's  mere  foreknowledge,  that  there  is  any  na- 
tural necessity  of  the  event,  since  the  causes  are  but  con- 
tingent, such  as  a  man's  free  will.  This  distinction  be- 
tween the  certamty  of  a  future  event,  with  the  consequent 
necessity  of  it,  derived  from  God's  foreknowledge,  and  the 
antecedent  necessity  of  it,  derived  from  the  nature  of 
things,  or  from    God's  actual    pre-determination  of    it^ 


367 

Mifliciently  solves  this  difliculty.    The  first  may  be,  where 
the  second  is  not. 

i!d.  We  have  reason  to  beUcve,  tliatthe  Gospel  is  never 
sent,  nor  the  proposals  of  salvation  made  to  any  people,  city, 
ornation,  where  God  loresecs,  there  are  not  any  at  all  that 
uill  accept  of  it.  Now,  in  the  way  of  God's  government  of 
this  world,  he  deals  with  mankind,  as  a  number  ot" 
free  and  moral  agents,  and  publishes  and  offers  sincerely 
his  benefits  to  men  in  general,  promiscuously  to  the  elect, 
and  the  non-elect.  And  while  by  these  same  proposals, 
means,  and  motives,  he  efleclually  and  powerfully  gathers 
his  elect  out  of  the  icorld,  he  gives  sufficient  encouragement 
to  all  sinners  to  accept  the  same  grace.  God's  secret 
foreknowledge  of  those  who  will  not  accept  it,  is  by  no 
means  a  sufficient  reason  to  prevent  or  forbid  the  general 
otfers  of  his  grace  to  them,  because  the  design  of  his  govern- 
ment is  to  treat  mankind,  as  reasonable  and  moral  agents. 

3d.  There  may  be  valuable  and  unknown  ends  and  pur- 
poses in  the  government  of  God,  attained  by  his  sincere 
forbidding  sin  to  creatures,  whom  he  knows  resolved  to 
practise  it;  and  by  his  sincere  commands  of  duty  to  crea- 
tures, whom  he  knows  resolved  to  neglect  it :  and  that 
without  any  real  injury  or  injustice  done  to  the  sinner. 
The  wisdom,  holiness,  and  dignity  of  his  government  must 
be  maintained  in  all  the  just  appearances  of  it,  though  sin- 
ners will  rebel  against  it:  for  the  honour  of  divine  govern- 
ment, in  the  authority,  wisdom,  and  holiness  of  it,  is  of 
much  more  importance  than  the  welfare  of  ten  thousand  of 
his  creatures.  Let  God  bt  true,  saith  the  Scripture,  though 
every  man  be  a  Unr  :  Rom.  iii.  4.  Let  God  appear  sincere 
and  wise,  glorious  and  holy,  though  ever}'  man  should  turn 
rebel.  God  may  wisely  and  sincerely  publish  the  doctrines 
of  a  salvation,  with  sufficient  light  and  evidence  about 
them,  to  those  who  he  knows  will  not  believe  them.  He 
may  wisely  and  sincerely  offer  grace  and  salvation,  t6  those 
who  he  foresees  will  refuse  it.  Would  it  be  an  act  of  folly, 
or  of  injustice,  or  of  untruth,  or  insincerity,  in  a  wise  and 
good  man,  to  give  forth  his  commands  to  ten  children^ 


368 

though  by  all  present  appearances,  his  great  wlsdQm  and 
sagacity  foresees  that  seven  oi  them  will  disi»bey,  and  only 
three,  coinplj  ?  Should  he  not  approve  himself  to  the  world  in 
doing  what  is  wise  and  good,  and  in  maintaining  his  parent- 
al character,  with  honour,  though  some  of  his  sons  neglect 
their  filial  dnt3'?  Hereby  he  also  gives  his  three  obedient 
children,  an  opportunity  to  show  their  duty  and  love, 
thbugh  the  other  seven  will  take  occasion  thence  to  discover 
their  rebellion.  The  great  God,  in  his  government  of  the 
world,  conducts  his  unsearchable  affairs  by  such  general 
laws  and  rules  as  is  most  for  his  honour:  and  neither  his  holi- 
ness nor  his  goodness  make  it  necessary  for  him  to  change 
this  his  wise  conduct,  though  he  foresees  many  of  his  crea- 
tures will  grow  vi^oise  instead  of  better  by  it. 

4th.  Whether  or  no  we  can  guess,  at  any  of  the  reasons 
of  God's  government,  or  conduct  in  this  thing,  yet  the  mat- 
ter of  fact  is  certain  and  beyond  dispute.  God  has  acted  in 
this  manner,  and  does  act  thus  in  many  instances.  He 
sent  his  gospel  to  the  Jews,  by  his  Son  Jesus,  though  he 
foreknew,  and  even  foretold,  by  his  prophets,  that  the  Jews 
would  reject  the  gospel,  and  murder  the  divine  messenger. 
He  gave  his  word  of  warning,  his  call  to  repentance  and 
righteousness  to  be  preached   b}-^   Noah  to  a  wicked  worid 

for    ONE    HUNDRED    AND     TWENTY    YEARS,    though     he 

foreknew  that  very  few  would  be  reformed  by  JSoah's 
preaching  :  and  he  told  JNoah,  that  at  the  end  of  tiiose 
years  he  would  bring  a  flood  over  the  world,  to  destro}'  the 
wicked  inhabitants  of  it,  who  would  not  be  reformed. 
Again,  when  he  put  Adam  and  Eve  into  Paradise,  under 
the  law  of  innocence,  and  forbid  them  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of. 
the  tree  of  knowledge,  we  also  believe  that  he  foreknew 
that  Adam  and  Eve  would  eat  this  fruit,  and  disobey  their 
Creator:  and  yet  he  wisely  forbid  them  to  eat  it.  TvJow 
since  we  know  that  a  just  God  hath  in  fact  done  these 
things,  we  must  confess,  there  cannot  be  the  least  injustice 
in  them.  Nay,  we  may  go  a  step  furlhei  in  these  matters 
of  fact.  God  has  actually  sent  his  Son,  and  his  Qospel, 
with  miracles^  and  divine  evidence,  where  he  knew  tliey 


3€9 

tv'oulJ  not  be  received^  or  at  most  by  a  very  few  that  is  to 
Choiazin,  Capernaum,  and  Beihsaida,  in  Galilee  :  and  yet 
he  never  sent  this  gospel  with  such  evidence  to  Tyre  and 
Sidon/to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  where  Christ  tells  us,  it 
would  have  been  received,  and  the  inhabitants  would  have 
repented  in  sackcloth  and  ashes  ;  Matt.  xi.  2 1 .  We  are  sure 
there  is  nothing  unjust  in  all  this  transaction,  because  we 
know  God  has  done  it,  who  is  righteous  in  all  his  ways,  and 
holy  in  all  his  works;  Ps.  exvi.  17-  Let  us  then  content 
ourselves  with  knowing  the  things  that  make  for  our  own 
peace,  and  humbly  submit  to  the  wise  and  gracious  govern- 
ment of  God,  for  our  own  eternal  happiness,  though  we 
cannot  enter  into  the  impenetrable  secrets  of  his  council, 
nor  solve  all  difficulties  therein,  because  our  short  and 
narrow  view  of  things  cannot  comprehend  them.  And 
yet,  at  the  same  time,  if  we  can,  by  our  reasonings,  accord- 
ing to  Scripture,  cast  any  happy  gleam  of  light  into  these 
darknesses  of  Providence,  whereby  any  honour  may  be  done 
to  God,  auy  imputation  of  injustice  taken  off  from  his 
conduct,  any  scruples  of  mankind  satisfied,  and  any  angry 
contentions  removed,  it  is  neither  unlawful  nor  improper  to 
attempt  and  seek  after  such  advantages.  And  with  this 
view  and  hope  I  would  propose  the  following  question. 

Question  14.  Can  the  different  opinions  of  christians, 
concerning  the  operations  of  divine  grace  on  the  souls  of 
men,  be  reconciled  ?  The  learned  author's  answer  to  this 
question  is  too  lengthy  to  be  introduced.  Several  notes  arc 
so  appropriate  to  what  I  have  before  said,  (though  I  had 
not  known  the  sentiments  of  this  author  when  I  delivered 
my  own,)  that  I  may  now  claim  to  be  sheltered  under  his 
wings. 

"  It  is  pity  the  professed  disciples  and  followers  of  the 
religion  of  Christ,  should  have  been  divided  into  so  many 
different  opinions,  and  thereby  given  occasions  to  distinguish 
them  by  so  many  different  names,  which  are  chiefly  derived 
cither  from  their  several  tenets,  or  some  practice  of  their 
forefathers^  or  from  some  signal  writers  who  espoused,  de- 


OtK) 

icnded,  or  propagated  those  different  sentiments.  1  could 
wish  with  all  my  soul  that  they  were  all  of  one  opinion,  and 
all  confined  only  to  the  single  name  of  christians,  which 
was  given  them  first  at  Antioch,  to  distinguish  them  from 
heathens,  Jews,  and  infidels  of  every  kind.  But  since  there 
are  such  multitudes  of  different  sentiments  among  them, 
and  in  writing  controversies  one  cannot  coveniently  use  a 
long  periphrasis  to  describe  each  of  them,  sufficient  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  re&t,  we  are  constrained  to  make 
use  of  those  names  by  which  they  have  either  distinguished 
tliemselves,  or  the  world  hath  distinguished  them,  such  as 
Pelijgians,  strict  Calvinists,  Arminians  or  llemonstrants, 
and  moderate  Calvinists  or  Reconcilers, 

But  here  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  most  rigid  Calvinists, 
who  pretend  to  carry  the  doctrines  of  divine  grace  to  tlie 
greatest  height  of  resistless  and  sovereign  efficiency,  and 
the  Pelagians,  who  generally  reduce  it  to  the  lowest  de- 
gree, that  is,  to  mere  favourable  outward  providences,  are 
accounted  the  two  extremes  in  this  controversy  ahoul  divine 
grace.  And  between  these  two,  there  are  almost  as  many 
degrees  and  classes  of  different  sentiments  as  there  are  wri- 
ters. Some  of  them  approach  a  little  nearer  to  tlie  one 
side,  and  some  to  the  other  :  and  it  is  not  fit  that  any  per- 
sons should  be  comprehended  under  any  of  the  names,  but 
which  they  themselves  allow  or  choose,  according  as  they 
come  nearest  to  the  opinions  of  this  or  the  other  part}'." 

"  Though  some  of  this  class  (rigid  Calvinists)  of  writers 
use  the  word  irresistible,  yet  others  of  them  dislike  it,  be- 
cause the  subjects  of  this  grace  may  and  sometimes  do  re- 
sist the  operations  of  this  grace  and  spirit  for  a  considerble 
time,  but  at  last  it  must  overcome,  and  therefore  they  choose 
to  call  it  insuperable." 

"See  the  remonstrances  of  those  who  opposed  the  synod 
of  Dort,  whereby  they  plainly  distinguish  their  opinions 
from  the  Pelagians,  and  use  this  language  which  I  have 
here  represented.  I  wish  all  those  christians  in  our  age  and 
nation,  who  profess  to  follow  the  opinions  of  the  Rcmon- 


Ol  1 

strants,  did  but  come  so  near  to  the  doctrines  of  scripture  as 
tlie  phrases  and  expressions  of  these  men  import." 

*'In  representing  the  Calvinist  and  the  Arminian  schemes, 
I  am  not  sensible  that  I  have  ascribed  any  one  opinion  to 
either  of  them,  but  what  I  am  supported  in,  by  John  Cal- 
vin, and  Francis  Turretine,  on  one  side,  and  Pliilip  Lim- 
borch,  and  the  Remonstrants  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  on  the 
other  side.  1  grant  it  lias  been  too  often  the  practice  of 
controversial  writers  on  the  Calvinist  side,  to  represent  the 
Arminians  in  the  Pelagian  form.  And  the  writers  of  the 
Arminian  party  have  again  represented  the  Calvinists  in 
the  form  of  Supralapsaiians  and  Antinomians.  But  this  is 
the  way  to  widen  the  divisions  of  the  christian  world,  and 
inflame  the  spirits  of  men  against  their  brethren,  and  not  to 
reconcile  them." 

Dr  Walts  was  the  author  of  an  Essay  on  the  Freedom  of 
the  Will  in  God  and  in  Creatures  :  in  which  he  advocates 
the  ideas  of  the  Remonstrants  respecting  the  Ireedom  of 
the  will,  which  the  first  president  Edwards  says  is  an  Armi- 
iiian  doctrine  ;  but  he  does  not  call  Dr.  Watts  an  Arminian  ; 
as  will  appear  from  the  quotation  I  have  heretofore  made, 
from  his  preface  to  the  freedom  of  the  will. 


\ 


m 


r.c 


♦■■■■^i^ 


\ 


